variation within the eu chapter 3 salmon aquaculture supply...
TRANSCRIPT
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 1 of 69
SENSE
‘HarmoniSed Environmental Sustainability in the European food and drink chain’
Deliverable: D.1.1
Key environmental challenges for food groups and regions representing the variation within the EU
Chapter 3
Salmon Aquaculture Supply Chain
WP1: Harmonised environmental impact assessment methodology
Task 1.1: Establishment of key environmental challenges of food and drink production and supply chains
Final version
March 2013
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 2 of 69
PREFACE
This report is a review of key environmental challenges of aquaculture salmon supply chain including
an overview of salmon feed and aquaculture production and processing into fresh and smoked
products. It is a part of Deliverable 1.1 in the SENSE project, which also contains complementary
reports on environmental challenges in supply chains of beef and dairy products and orange juice,
which have been chosen as examples of food supply chains in Europe.
The report was compiled through collective literature searches in academic journals and professional
reports; web‐based information; and through pre-existing knowledge and prior research activity of
the writing team of this report. The report is not an exhaustive account but is intended to give a
”helicopter view” of the main environmental challenges in the aquaculture salmon value chain based
on a review of LCA studies as well as providing insight to monitoring programs and environmental
certification schemes for salmon production.
Authors Partner E-mail
Guðrún Ólafsdóttir (Editor) ASCS, University of Iceland [email protected]
Grace Viera AAU, Aalborg University [email protected]
Erling Larsen DTU-AQUA, Danmarks Tekniske Universitet
Thorkild Nielsen AAU, Aalborg University [email protected]
Gyða Mjöll Ingólfsdóttir EFLA Consulting Engineers [email protected]
Eva Yngvadóttir EFLA Consulting Engineers [email protected]
Sigurður Bogason ASCS, University of Iceland [email protected]
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 3 of 69
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE ...................................................................................................................................... 2
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 9
Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 13
1. PART 1: FOOD CHAIN PROCESS MAPPING AND SYSTEMS DESCRIPTION AQUACULTURE PRODUCTION SYSTEMS .............................................................................................................. 15
Aquaculture production systems and technologies ..................................................................... 17
1.1 Process flow chart of salmon supply chain and main environmental impacts .................... 18
1.2 Feed - Primary production ................................................................................................... 20
Feed composition ......................................................................................................................... 20
Feed processing ............................................................................................................................ 21
Alternative feed ingredients ......................................................................................................... 21
Organic feed ................................................................................................................................. 23
1.3 Aquaculture farming production ......................................................................................... 23
Smolt production .......................................................................................................................... 23
Salmon farming ............................................................................................................................. 24
Transport from farm to slaughter / processing ............................................................................ 24
1.4 Processing (Slaughterhouse and packaging) ........................................................................ 24
Salmon slaughtering .......................................................................................................................... 24
Primary Processing ............................................................................................................................ 24
Packaging .......................................................................................................................................... 25
Waste in primary and secondary processing ................................................................................ 25
1.5 Secondary Processing - Smoking .......................................................................................... 25
Waste ............................................................................................................................................ 26
Energy use..................................................................................................................................... 26
1.6 Transport to secondary processing and retail ..................................................................... 26
Refrigerated transport .................................................................................................................. 27
Waste ............................................................................................................................................ 27
1.7 Retail .................................................................................................................................... 27
Energy ........................................................................................................................................... 28
Refrigeration ................................................................................................................................. 28
1.8 Consumer ............................................................................................................................. 28
Energy ........................................................................................................................................... 28
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 4 of 69
Post-consumer waste ................................................................................................................... 28
2 PART 2. KEY ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES IN SALMON PRODUCTION ............................... 29
2.1 Environmental challenges for aquaculture .......................................................................... 29
Aquaculture technologies and preventive measures ................................................................... 30
Animal welfare issues in aquaculture ........................................................................................... 30
Water quality monitoring ............................................................................................................. 31
2.2 Environmental impacts assessed by LCA ............................................................................. 31
Functional Unit ............................................................................................................................. 32
Allocation ...................................................................................................................................... 33
2.3 LCA studies on seafood ........................................................................................................ 34
2.4 LCA studies on aquaculture supply chain ............................................................................ 37
2.5 Feed - Bioresource Use ........................................................................................................ 37
Exploitation of fish for feed – composition of feed ...................................................................... 37
Feed Conversion Ratio .................................................................................................................. 40
FIFO (fish in – fish out) .................................................................................................................. 41
Nutrient – balance accounting and resource budget (protein fat energy, phosphorous , n-3 fatty acids EPA, DHA). ........................................................................................................................... 41
2.6 Feed - Energy use and GWP ................................................................................................. 42
2.7 Feed - Land use .................................................................................................................... 43
Seafloor impact of fisheries and discards ..................................................................................... 44
2.8 Aquaculture - Eutrophication............................................................................................... 44
Assessment of different rearing techniques................................................................................. 44
2.9 Aquaculture – GWP and energy use .................................................................................... 45
Different rearing systems - GWP, acidification and energy use ................................................... 45
2.10 Aquaculture - Ecotoxicity ..................................................................................................... 47
2.11 Aquaculture - Biodiversity threats ....................................................................................... 47
Sea lice .......................................................................................................................................... 47
Chemical discharges - Antifoulants............................................................................................... 48
Use of medication ......................................................................................................................... 48
Escapees ....................................................................................................................................... 49
2.12 Transport - Use of fossil fuels - GWP ................................................................................... 49
Processing (fresh and frozen) and transport - Energy use and GHG emission ............................. 49
Refrigerated transport – impact of chilling and packages ............................................................ 51
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 5 of 69
2.13 Refrigerants and Ozone depletion ....................................................................................... 51
2.14 Local ecological impact categories....................................................................................... 51
PART 3: LIST OF KEY IMPACT CATEGORIES AND THEIR CLASSIFICATION TO GLOBAL OR REGIONAL IMPACTS .................................................................................................................................... 53
Key environmental impacts of the salmon aquaculture supply chain - Global and regional impacts ......................................................................................................................................... 54
PART 4: REGIONAL DIFFERENCES IN AQUACULTURE PRODUCTION AFFECTING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .................................................................................................................................... 57
Biogeographical regions and seas in Europe ................................................................................ 57
Regionalisation based on production technologies and geographical characteristics ................ 58
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 60
ANNEX 1 .................................................................................................................................... 67
Standards and certification relevant for the aquaculture supply chain ....................................... 67
FAO Technical Guidelines on Aquaculture Certification ............................................................... 67
List of standards for aquaculture (examples) ............................................................................... 68
Global Aquaculture Performance Index (GAPI) ............................................................................ 68
Eco-Benchmark ............................................................................................................................. 69
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 6 of 69
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 A summary of the different fish species used in Norwegian salmon feed and their meal and oil share in tonnes for 2010 (From Ytrestøl et al (2011)) .................................................................. 22
Table 2 Main transportation steps in salmon production and estimated distances for A) fresh salmon (whole gutted with head on) transported in ice in EPS boxes (T4 A) to secondary processor for smoking in France (Chill-on project- UoI) ..................................................................................... 27
Table 3 Main areas of environmental challenges for aquaculture (Nash, 2001) .................................. 29
Table 4. Environmental impacts—aquaculture (Adapted from Ellingsen et al., 2009) ......................... 30
Table 5 System boundaries, functional units and allocation for salmon LCAs (Henriksson et al, 2012) ...................................................................................................................................................... 33
Table 6 Impact categories reported in different LCA studies on seafood processing or supply chain (From Vázquez-Rowe et al., 2012) ................................................................................................ 35
Table 7 GWP, acidification, eutrophication, and use of energy, water and bioresources reported in different LCA studies of the farm-gate production of salmon in Norway, UK, Canada, and Chile (Adapted from Pelletier and Tyedmers, 2007, Pelletier et al., 2009 and Boissy et al., 2011) ..... 38
Table 8 Example of feed composition in standard (STD) fish oil based feed versus a vegetable oil based feed (LFD low fish diet) and origin of ingredients (adapted From Boissy et al., (2011)) ... 39
Table 9 Feed conversion factors for salmon (kg feed per kilo salmon to slaughter in live weight) ...... 40
Table 10 Eutrophication reported in LCA studies of different rearing systems and feed composition for salmonids ................................................................................................................................ 45
Table 11 LCA for different rearing systems from cradle to gate for showing results of environmental impacts for the functional unit 1 tonne of live fish weight .......................................................... 46
Table 12 Ecotoxicity assessment in different rearing systems of salmonids ........................................ 47
Table 13 Average number of escaped salmon per tonne of Atlantic Salmon produced (From Ford et al, 2012) ........................................................................................................................................ 49
Table 14 Proposed Local Ecological Impact Categories and Indicators for Life Cycle Assessment of Aquaculture (Ford et al., 2012) .................................................................................................... 52
Table 15 The key environmental impacts of the salmon aquaculture supply chain ............................. 53
Table 16 Summary of emissions in each production stage of salmon and key impact categories and their classification into global or regional impacts ....................................................................... 55
Table 17 Main aquaculture species, production systems and technologies in Europe (Adapted from Váradi et al., 2010)........................................................................................................................ 59
Table 18 Global Aquaculture Performance Index (GAPI) (Volpe et al., 2010) ...................................... 69
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 7 of 69
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Traditional Danish rainbow trout freshwater production site. Earth ponds and paddy wheels for aeration ................................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 2 Net pens in saltwater, with a transport vessel (Picture E. Larsen) .......................................... 15
Figure 3 The world salmon aquaculture production per continent since 1970 (FAO data 2010) ......... 16
Figure 4 Relative contribution of the production volume of major species in aquaculture in Europe in 2008 (Source: FAO 2010) .............................................................................................................. 17
Figure 5 Flow chart of the main steps in aquaculture salmon supply chain including feed production, aquaculture production, primary and secondary processing and distribution to retail and consumer. Transport and distribution varies depending on companies and markets. Two examples are given: A) the fresh salmon (whole gutted with head on) is transported in ice in EPS boxes (T4) to secondary processor for smoking in France; B) the salmon is processed in Norway into smoked salmon products and distributed to retail via primary and secondary distributors in Europe. .................................................................................................................. 19
Figure 6 Estimated global use of fish meal and oil by the salmon farming industry projected to 2020. Blue, total feeds used; red, mean% fish meal; green, mean% fish oil. Source: Tacon & Metian; From Bostock et al. 2010. ............................................................................................................. 20
Figure 7 Fresh salmon packed in EPS box covered with flake ice (left) and typical packages for vacuum packed smoked salmon in cardboard boxes. ............................................................................... 25
Figure 8 The route between Aukra (Norway) and Vestby (Norway) (left) and the route between Vestby (Norway) and Boulogne sur Mer (France) (right). ............................................................ 26
Figure 9 A generic aquaculture supply chain from feed to consumer showing different boundaries (dotted lines), the input resources and the output emissions influencing the environmental impacts as have been assessed in LCA studies on aquaculture systems and salmon supply chain. Resource budget accounting has also been performed for salmon. ............................................ 32
Figure 10 Flow diagram of aquaculture salmon production from cradle to grave showing input resources, output emissions and the most common environmental impacts assessed by LCA (climate change, ozone depletion, eutrophication, acidification, terrestrial and marine aquatic and sediment toxicity, and challenges that cause threats to biodiversity (chemical discharges (antifoulants and medicines), pathogens, escapees, and sea lice) .............................................. 36
Figure 11 Energy use, bioresource use and GWP for aquaculture salmon ”cradle to gate” fed with traditional diet in the four countries Norway, UK, Canada and Chile (From: Pelletier et al. 2009) ...................................................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 12 GWP in process steps of a salmon supply chain (Adapted from Winther et al., 2010) ....... 42
Figure 13. Agricultural area occupation and sea-primary-production area required (Source: Ytrestöyl et al., 2011) ................................................................................................................................... 43
Figure 14 Vaccination and use of Antibiotics in Norway (Source: Marine Harvest Handbook) ............ 48
Figure 15 GWP and energy use for production steps of salmon products and transport to different markets (Functional unit:1 kg edible product at wholesaler) (Adapted from Winther et al. 2009) ............................................................................................................................................. 50
Figure 16 North-east Atlantic Ocean physiography (depth distribution and main currents) (Source EEA) (Note that the map does not cover all of NorthEast Atlantic Ocean, as specified by FAO zone 27, and the Mediterranean area is only partly shown) ....................................................... 57
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 8 of 69
GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS
SENSE Harmonised Environmental Sustainability in the European food and drink chain
FCR Feed Conversion Ratio
FIFO Fish in – Fish out
LCA Life cycle assessment
LCIA Life cycle impact assessment
LCI Life cycle inventory analysis
LUC Land use changes
GWP Global warming potential
AP Acidification potential
ODP Ozone depletion potential
BRU Biotic resource use
EUT Eutrophication
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 9 of 69
Summary
An overview of the aquaculture salmon supply chain and the key environmental impacts has been
achieved by reviewing of studies on environmental challenges and impacts involved in aquaculture
and seafood supply chains. The aim is to establish a list of the key environmental impacts for
aquaculture salmon based on a review of studies on Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Aspects of emission
and resource use of the salmon aquaculture sector will be evaluated to match the challenges with
available impact assessment methods and need for methods adjustment or development (Task 1.2).
The most important methodological areas have already been identified and the aim is to use LCA as a
holistic approach for the SENSE tool. However, since LCA does not include assessment of all
challenges, the report also addresses the characteristics of the salmon aquaculture chain and
indicators for environmental performance that are applied in the industry. Furthermore,
regionalisation of aquaculture production according to technologies and species and bio geographical
regions is briefly addressed.
Aquaculture production systems
The first part of the report gives a historic overview of salmon aquaculture production systems in a
global context. Since 1970 the salmon production industry has grown to become a major component
of global aquaculture production. Its production is concentrated in Northern Europe, Canada, and
Chile. The main producing countries of cultured salmonids (salmon and trout) are in relative order:
Norway, Chile, Scotland, Canada, the Faroe Islands (Denmark) and the US. Established industries also
exist in Ireland, Iceland and Australia.
The aquaculture salmon supply chain starts with the feed production, including fisheries for the feed
(fish meal, fish oil, fish ensilage) and crop cultivation (e.g. soy protein, wheat, rapeseed oil),
additionally vitamins, minerals and colour are added. The composition of the feed used in
aquaculture has changed considerably during the last decade. The use of soya and other crops has
increased, whereas less of forage fish is used, instead trimmings from fish and by products from
feedstock are used. The development in feed has been in response to concerns because of limited
resources of fish for human consumption and the high cost of fish as ingredient in feed. Recent
technical developments in rearing techniques and compound aquafeed have improved the FCR (feed
conversion ratio)in aquaculture. The replacement of fish by vegetable ingredients has been
considered an environmental benefit although this may be controversial. Vegetable feed has a
positive effect on the FIFO (fish in – fish out) ratio, but may have an effect on the nutrient content of
the salmon. Nutrient balance accounting and resource budget (protein, fat, energy, phosphorous, n-3
fatty acids (EPA, DHA)) are methods that have been used to monitor the retention of nutrients in the
farmed fish (Ytrestöyl et al., 2011). It is foreseen that the development of feed will continue in the
coming years with a focus on utilizing micro- or macroalgea and microbial cultures as a source for
feed ingredients.
The salmon aquaculture production in Northern Europe is typically based on smolt production in
freshwater in a land based hatchery and farming in a net pen system. Primary processing includes
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 10 of 69
slaughtering, gutting, filleting, chilling and packaging. The salmon is sold fresh or frozen, either whole
or fillets and the most common secondary processing is smoking. In the report two cases are
suggested for transport of either fresh chilled whole fish to secondary processor in Europe or fully
processed smoked products transported from Norway to markets in Europe. The finished smoked
salmon products are commonly vacuum packed (or modified atmosphere) in plastic packaging
material and cardboard boxes while fresh fish is transported in EPS (Expanded Polystyrene) boxes
sometimes with added cooling mats or ice. Transport and refrigeration during transport is of key
importance when comparing different food supply chains and the impacts of local and global
production. There are opportunities to minimize the environmental impact of transport by supply
chain management and considering energy consumption and use both in primary production within
the fisheries including fishing, meal/oil manufacture and transportation of meals/oils to fish farms, as
well as transport of finished products to the market.
Key environmental challenges in salmon production
The environmental challenges of aquaculture are highlighted in part two. There have been specific
environmental concerns related to the potential loss of biodiversity as a result from activities in the
salmon aquaculture industry. These are related to the use of medicine for control of diseases and
salmon lice, and the effect of escapees on the wild salmon. The efficiency of feed and farming
systems can have an impact e.g. in the case of excess feed. This will cause eutrophication which may
influence the benthic ecosystem because of nutrient enrichment of sediments and the water column.
Exploitation of forage fish for feed has been a controversial issue, since this puts pressure on fish
stocks and may have an impact on the seafloor. The use of soya and other crops for feed has also a
considerable environmental impact because of land use changes caused by cultivation and the use of
fertilizers, pesticides and water for irrigation. These issues have influenced public opinion and their
perception towards aquaculture, which is sometimes a priori negative image. However, the
aquaculture sector has made considerable efforts to mitigate the environmental effects for example
by changing the composition of feed and development of aqua feed, as well as improved aquaculture
technologies and good practices. Governmental monitoring and legal requirements in some
countries i.e. Norway and Canada require that aquaculture farms report occurrences of sea lice,
escapees, the use of medication and water quality and sediment monitoring in the areas close to the
farms. This implies that data on these aspects may be readily available and currently there is an
increasing awareness that monitoring data should be accessible in the public domain to enhance the
transparency and help building an image of responsibility for the sector.
Environmental impacts assessed by LCA
Studies on LCA of aquaculture of salmon have focused on the effects of different composition of
feed. Although this report is on salmon production and net-pen systems, we also consider other
species farmed in Europe like trout, and arctic charr, as well as turbot and seabass. Additionally, since
the main environmental challenges for aquaculture systems are dependent on the type of rearing
system, other rearing technologies like closed system aquaculture are of interest. This is of relevance
to prepare for more extended use of the SENSE tool for aquaculture products.
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 11 of 69
Feed production is most often the major contributor to environmental impacts in conventional
aquaculture systems (Aubin et al., 2006; Ellingsen and Aanondsen, 2006; Tyedmers and
Pelletier,2007; Winther et al., 2009: Ziegler et al., 2012)), while the impact of energy use is
dominating in recirculation systems (Aubin et al., 2009; Ayer and Tyedmers, 2009). Feed producers
source raw materials from diverse fish, crop, and livestock sources globally, each with characteristic
resource dependencies and environmental impacts. Fuel use in fishing, and feed production in
aquaculture are key contributors to greenhouse gas emission (Ziegler et al., 2012) and the impact of
fuel use for global transport involved in sourcing feed is also of concern. Reports from LCA studies
agree that the production of feed including the crop production and the fisheries accounts for the
majority of salmon aquaculture’s supply chain energy use, biotic resource use, greenhouse gas
emissions and acidification. The fish farm stage of production is a significant contributor to the
eutrophication impact which has been shown to be highly dependent on the type of rearing systems,
the type of feed and the feed conversion ratio (Ayer & Tyedmers, 2009; Aubin et al., 2009; Boissy et
al., 2011; Pelletier et al., 2009). It should be mentioned that eutrophication may be a potential
opportunity when considering the possibilities involved in polyculture systems.
The indicators and methods applied for chemical discharges and assessment of ecotoxicity are not
well developed and their use for environmental impact assessment of aquaculture have been
questioned (Ford et al., 2012). Land use for crop production for feed and sea primary production-
required to sustain the fish used for salmon feed and the benthic area influenced by fishing gear have
been calculated to assess the impacts of feed for salmon (Ytrestöyl et al., 2011). Water use is of
importance especially in water scarce areas and land based systems and water use for irrigation in
production of crop for feed.
Processing, packaging, transport, sale, consumption and waste management have not been
commonly included in life cycle stages in seafood LCAs. This is particularly the case in aquaculture
studies, while fisheries studies have often followed products through the transport stage (Ziegler et
al., 2012). Results from recent studies which have focused on environmental impacts of the
processing and transport steps have shown that they are not significant in the overall impacts for the
products when the transport is a short distance to the market within Europe. However, when
considering the product type (whole fish or fillets), long distance transport and mode of transport (air
or ship) the transport was found to have a large impact on the energy use and GWP and trucking is
also an important contributor to GWP. LCAs that have focused on the transportation phase of chilled
fish supply chains agree that sea freight is by far more environmentally friendly transportation mode
than air freight and therefore it is very important to consider how food is produced and transported
to the market and not only where it is produced in terms of environmental performance of products
(Andersen, 2002; Freidberg, 2009; Tyedmers et al., 2010; Ingólfsdóttir et al., 2010). The reported
values for GWP for salmon aquaculture products varies. For fresh whole gutted salmon transported
by air to Tokyo a very high value of 13.86 kg CO2 equivalents per kg edible fish was reported (Winther
et al., 2009; Ziegler et al., 2012). Typically, values in the range of 2.2–3.0 kg CO2 eq / kg edible fish
have been reported for aquaculture salmon to the market (Ellingsen et al., 2009; Pelletier et al.,
2009; Winther et al., 2009). The impacts of packaging material and chilling in transportation were the
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 12 of 69
main contributors to environmental impact potentials in a seafood supply chain systems (not
including the fisheries) when comparison was made between chilled and superchilled fillets (Claussen
et al., 2011). The environmental impact of EPS packaging has been shown to be considerable, where
the main contribution is energy use in the production of EPS granulates (Ingólfsdóttir et al., 2010).
The GHG emission (CO2 equivalents) of Atlantic salmon shows an emission comparable to wild caught
Atlantic cod and chicken while substantially less than beef and pork when compared based on
calculations of edible product. There are, however regional differences ranging from 1.78 kg CO2
eq./kg (whole weight) for Norwegian-produced salmon to 3.27 CO2 eq./kg (whole weight) for fish
produced in the United Kingdom (Pelletier et al., 2009), but this has been explained by difference in
feed ingredients and higher use of marine by products for salmon produced in the United Kingdom
The impact category ozone depletion is related to the use of refrigerants. However, new refrigerants
are being developed where replacement of the HCFC R22 with environmentally harmless refrigerants
like ammonia is in progress. According to Ziegler et al., (2012) this change would reduce the carbon
footprint of fish products by up to 30% if the right substitutes were chosen.
Key impact categories and their classification to global or regional impacts
In part three of the report the key environmental impacts of relevance in each step of the
aquaculture salmon supply chain have been identified as summarised below:
Production step Cause Impact category Global /Regional
Feed – crop cultivation
Fertilizer use in crop production Terrestrial eutrophication, Water eutrophication, Acidification
R
Use of pesticides in crop production for feed
Biodiversity, Ecotoxicity, Human toxicity,
R
Water use - Irrigation in crop production Water depletion R
Feed - fisheries Bioresource use - Forage fish for feed Biotic resource depletion G
Use of fossil fuels and energy use Climate change Abiotic resource depletion Acidification
G G/R R
Aquaculture
Land use, sea floor use, sea surface and coastal area use (area altered by farm waste)
Land use R
Excess feed, faeces / Nutrient release - changes in nutrient N and P concentration in the water column and sediments
Eutrophication
R
Sea lice and escapee Disease outbreak, parasite abundance Reduction in wild salmon survival
Biodiversity R
Chemical discharges /medicine use, antifoulants
Ecotoxicity (Tterrestrial / aquatic)
R
Energy use rearing system /recirculation Climate change G
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 13 of 69
Acidification R
Water use in aquaculture Water resource depletion R
Processing, storage, retail
Energy use Packaging (EPS boxes), cleaners Refrigerant use and leakage Water use for processing / cleaning
Climate change - GWP Acidification Abiotic resource depletion Ozone depletion Water resource depletion
G R G/R G R
Transport Use of fossil fuels and energy use Refrigerants
Climate change - GWP Energy Acidification Abiotic resource depletion Ozone depletion
G R G/R G
Waste CH4 from waste handling Climate change - GWP G
Regional differences in aquaculture production affecting environmental impacts
Regionalisation is briefly addressed by looking into production technologies according to regions and species and the characteristics of the biogeographical areas of the aquaculture production in Europe.
The SENSE project will analyse the overall supply chains from “cradle to grave” including the raw material for feed, to the production site and processing and further to the retail.
Recommendations Many of the LCA studies on aquaculture have functional unit of tons live weight salmon and
conversion factors can then be applied to make a comparison between studies if other functional
units are applied. In SENSE it is recommended to use the functional units of kg edible product for
all the products studied (rather than edible portions). It may be of interest for consumers to have
information based on 100g product in line with nutritional labelling requirements.
Climate change - GWP and energy use are important indicators for logistics in food supply chains
and can be applied in the SENSE tool to assess the environmental impacts of the post processing
activities and transport regardless of product type.
Because of the concerns of limited natural resources in the salmon supply chain it is
recommended that the SENSE tool should include assessment of use of fossil fuels, energy use,
biotic resource use , land use (seafloor/coastal area) and water use
Sustainable use of resources and minimizing of waste is of key importance in food supply chains
and therefore mass balance, yield and material flow analysis should be considered for inclusion
in the SENSE tool to communicate the performance of the food supply chains.
The reliability of indicators for ecotoxicity to assess chemical discharges from aquaculture have
been questioned and need to be further addressed in Task 1.3 to determine if these indicators
can be recommended for impact assessment in the SENSE tool.
The content of the various certification schemes and standards should be taken into
consideration in the development of the SENSE tool to make sure that the tool is developed
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 14 of 69
according to the current trends and needs of the industry. It is recommended to perform gap
analysis to compare requirements of different standards and schemes and identify data
availability and synergies in data collection for the LCA.
Eutrophication impacts, caused by nutrient releases on the benthos or freshwater, or loss of
biodiversity caused by impacts of sea lice concentrations and escaped fish in the case of salmon
farming are well understood and regularly monitored and thus the data may be readily available.
The effect of efforts over time to improve performance should be identified when defining the
indicators. The results from environmental assessments should have relevance for more than just
documenting the present situation in the industry. It is recommended that the SENSE work in
WP2 and WP4 should focus on sensitivity analysis to include different scenarios:
- different feed composition and feed conversion rates
- compare energy use in e.g. processing according to regions with different electricity grids
- different production system (closed cage system, recirculating, flow through, net pens)
- additional aquaculture species (Atlantic salmon, Arctic charr, trout)
- processing type and packaging methods (fresh, frozen, chilled, superchilled, smoked)
- transport modes (air, ship, water, trucks, automobiles)
The transport to secondary processing and retail may be of special interest for the SENSE project
where the energy use and GWP (carbon footprint) can be compared regardless of products. It is
therefore of interest to include the transport to the retailer and the delivery of the finished
smoked salmon products to consumers highlighting the use of energy, need for refrigeration and
waste generation
Frequent evaluations as are intended by the application of the SENSE tool should not necessarily
imply full LCAs, but rather use of indicators that are monitored by the industry according to
regulatory requirements or voluntary certification schemes.
The advantage of indicators is that they facilitate a proactive approach to environmental and
sustainability improvements. Trends in the industry are visualized so that problems can be dealt
with or prevented before they become too serious or the good performance can be
communicated for marketing purposes.
Efforts to explain the significance of a local production of certified high-quality aquatic products
in close proximity to European markets are considered of high importance.
The SENSE tool could facilitate frequent evaluations of important aspects in order to assess the
performance of the industry, to determine if improvements are needed, and to document the
successes or failures of earlier measures to improve the environmental performance.
The frequency of possible analysis for certain impacts of aquaculture should be considered i.e.
LCA is usually based on annual data from companies, while the lifecycle of salmon is 2 years.
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 15 of 69
1. Part 1: Food chain process mapping and systems description Aquaculture production systems
Aquaculture has a long history back in time and has been an integrated part of producing animal
protein to world population. Various fish species have been used and different farming methods
have been developed.
Farming of fish in the temperate
climate zones has been
concentrated on a limited number
of fish species and the closer to
equator the more variety of fish
species have been farmed.
Traditionally, the production has
taken place in ponds (intensive
farming) or in wet land areas
(extensive farming).
Carp is the most prevalent
cultured species world-wide, and
is, especially popular in the
eastern part of Europe. In the
northern part of Europe new
production methods for saltwater
farming in the coastal areas for
salmon and rainbow trout were
introduced in the 1970’ies. After
some turbulent years, this sector
really became a success in the
1990’ies. There have been some
drawbacks, but now the
production is stately increasing
and Chile is catching up after
some troubled production years,
caused by diseases. In 2011 the
world production of Atlantic salmon totalled 1.61 million tonnes. Norway produced 61 % of this
amount (NSC, 2012).
The world production of fish from aquaculture is dominated by the Asia-Pacific region, which
produce approx. 90 % of the world production. This is due to China’s enormous production which
accounted for more than 2/3 of the world production in 2008 (Bostock et al., 2010). China is by far
the largest fish-producing country, with production of 47.5 million tonnes in 2008 (32.7 and 14.8
million tonnes from aquaculture and capture fisheries, respectively)(FAO, 2010).
Figure 1 Traditional Danish rainbow trout freshwater production site. Earth ponds and paddy wheels for aeration
Figure 2 Net pens in saltwater, with a transport vessel (Picture E. Larsen)
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 16 of 69
Since 1970 the salmon production industry has grown to become a major component of global
aquaculture production, being “the most widely” consumed aquaculture product in the developed
world (Murray et al, 2011). Its production is concentrated in Northern Europe, Canada, and Chile. The
top producing countries of cultured salmonids (salmon and trout) are in relative order: Norway,
Chile, Scotland, Canada, the Faeroe Islands (Denmark) and the US. Established industries also exist in
Ireland, Iceland and Australia (Cohen Commission, 2011). The leading producers of farmed salmon
were Chile and Norway with 31% and 33% respectively of worldwide production based on figures
from 2006 (FAO 2008). However, figures from 2010 reflect the decline in the production in Chile and
Norway then accounted for 65% (944.600 tons) of the total salmon production, while UK, Chile and
Canada had similar production levels accounting for 10%, 9% and 8%, respectively, of the annual
production (FAO, 2010).
Figure 3 The world salmon aquaculture production per continent since 1970 (FAO data 2010)
The food sector has grown steadily in the past decades, aquaculture being one of the fastest growing
animal food-producing sectors in the world. Aquaculture accounts for almost half of the total food
fish supply and the percentage is increasing every year (FAO, 2010). The demand for aquaculture
products will continue to grow over the next two decades as a key source of animal protein for
growing urban populations (Hall et al., 2011). For 2030 it is expected that 70% of all seafood products
consumed will be farmed (Pelletier and Tyedmers, 2008). This increase in production brings potential
environmental challenges regarding emissions of pollutants, water quality problems, production and
processing practices, contribution to global warming, acidification and eutrophication, among others
(Samuel-Fitwi et al. 2012). Environmental monitoring procedures and practices in salmon cage
aquaculture and the regulatory process for pre-development of environmental impact assessment
(EIA) in Canada, Chile, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States of
America are well established. All the 7 countries have a regulatory system in place for a systematic
study of the environmental costs and benefits of a proposed new salmon farm (EIA). The EIA system
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 17 of 69
highlights potentially negative environmental impacts but socio-economic costs and benefits are
generally not part of the EIA process (Wilson et al., 2009).
Demand for sustainable aquatic products has been growing, in line with a similar trend in the food
sector. Organically certified food products demand have increased at a rate of 20-25% per year and
fair trade food items demand have increased by 221% in the period from 1997 to 2003 (Pelletier and
Tyedmers, 2008). The different production systems have different impact on the environment. There
is diversity in the species that are farmed as well as in the system type, size, intensity, technique or
marine environment used for production (Pelletier and Tyedmers, 2008). Aquaculture encloses a
wide range of species and production practices in Europe where salmon and trout account for 51.1%
of total volume produced. Common carp is the main freshwater species while marine fish has
increased during the last years and the two main species seabream and seabass account for
approximately 7 % of the total European aquaculture production. (FAO, 2010) (Figure 4).
Figure 4 Relative contribution of the production volume of major species in aquaculture in Europe in 2008 (Source: FAO
2010)
Aquaculture production systems and technologies Aquaculture production systems and technologies show a great diversity in Europe and a
classification on the basis of the species produced has been suggested as follows (Váradi et al., 2010):
a) Shellfish farming (oyster, mussels, clams, cockles and other shellfish species).
b) Freshwater farming in lakes, ponds or basins:
intensive production demanding high-quality water (trout);
extensive and semi-intensive aquaculture (common carp and associated species);
intensive aquaculture in closed system (eels and other species). c) Marine finfish farming (Atlantic salmon, seabream and seabass, tuna and other marine fish
farming)
More details on aquaculture technologies and developments in Europe can be found in Váradi et al.
(2010). LCA studies have been performed to assess environmental impacts of different production
system i.e. for hatcheries by Colt et al., (2008), and different farming production methods by Ayer
and Tyedmers (2008).
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 18 of 69
Developments in rearing systems and feeding technologies have focused on reducing the
environmental effects of aquaculture to maintain the sustainable development of this industry (ICES,
2012). While ecological environmental impacts of marine net-pen production systems for salmon
have been of concern, other production systems based on closed system aquaculture (CSA) are of
increasing interest, in particular because they offer controlled interface between the culture (fish)
and the natural environment and the potential for control of inputs and outputs (EcoPlan Int. 2008).
CSA systems include those using a onetime flow‐through of water with varying degrees of input and
output water treatment methods, to fully ‘recirculating’ systems where water is largely reused (also
known as Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RAS)).
Polyculture is an approach to minimise the environmental impacts of organic waste in aquaculture
and has mitigation benefits. The most common integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA)
approach combines fed aquaculture (fish) with extractive dissolved inorganic aquaculture (seaweed)
and extractive particulate organic aquaculture (shellfish). This is based on the principle that the by-
products (wastes) from one resource become inputs for another. There is considerable potential for
the bioremediation of nutrient-rich waters, and efficacy of different combinations of species may
vary to mitigate the impact of aquaculture. Most studies evaluate the integration of two species (e.g.,
fish and shellfish; fish and macro algae), although studies in Canada are currently testing the
combination of three (fish, macro algae and shellfish) and more (same groups with the inclusion of
sea cucumbers, sea urchins and others) species (ICEC, 2012).
1.1 Process flow chart of salmon supply chain and main environmental impacts
The most common marine finfish species in aquaculture is the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), which is
bred in freshwater land based hatcheries and farmed in net pen systems. Process mapping on
Norwegian net-pen salmon production was reported by Frederiksen et al., (2007) and Karlsen et al.,
(2007). After hatching salmon is grown in freshwater (tanks or nets in lakes) until they reach a
desired weight, size, and age. Afterwards they are moved to nets in saltwater until they reach
approx. 4-4.5 kg. The main steps in aquaculture salmon supply chain are feed production,
aquaculture production, primary and secondary processing and distribution to retail and consumer
are shown in Figure 5. Transport and distribution channels vary depending on companies and
markets. Two examples are given on logistics from studies performed earlier by SENSE partners; A)
the fresh salmon (whole gutted with head on) is transported in ice in EPS boxes (T4 A) to secondary
processor for smoking in France. The other example B) shows where the salmon is processed in
Norway into smoked salmon products (T4B) and distributed to retail via primary and secondary
distributors (T5). In the processing stage, the fish is gutted, de-headed, filleted, brined and smoked
and finally, the salmon is packed, refrigerated transported and distributed to supermarkets across
Switzerland (Buchspies et al., 2011).
.
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974 Page 19 of 69
Figure 5 Flow chart of the main steps in aquaculture salmon supply chain including feed production, aquaculture production, primary and secondary processing and distribution to retail and consumer. Transport and distribution varies depending on companies and markets. Two examples are given: A) the fresh salmon (whole gutted with head on) is transported in ice in EPS boxes (T4) to secondary processor for smoking in France; B) the salmon is processed in Norway into smoked salmon products and distributed to retail via primary and secondary distributors in Europe.
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 20 of 69
1.2 Feed - Primary production
Feed is the main input in aquaculture production systems. Norwegian salmon producers, in 2010, used 1236 000 tons of feed to produce 612 097 tons of salmon fillet (Ytrestøyl et al, 2011).
Feed composition The feed used in aquaculture is composed of industrial fish and agricultural products. Salmon feeds and
feeding represent between 60 to 70% of total farm production costs and therefore any price increases in
fish meal and oil will have a significant effect on farm profitability. In general, the price of fishmeal and fish
oil is determined by market forces depending upon the quality and quantities/availability of the products in
question in the market and the cost and availability of other protein sources for feed like soybean meal
(Tacon, 2005). The changes in the use of fish meal and fish oil since 1970 are reflected by the increase in
aquaculture and the sourcing of these materials for feed rather than industrial use as hardened oilIn 2005,
27% of the global fish meal production and 68% of the fish oil production was used in feed for salmonids
worldwide. In 2009 aquaculture used about 81% of the total fish oil production while human consumption
accounted for 13%, the remaining 6% was used for other purposes. Regarding fish meal production for the
same year (2009) aquaculture used 63%, while chicken and pork production used 8 and 25% respectively,
4% was used for other purposes (Ytrestøyl et al, 2011).
Figure 6 Estimated global use of fish meal and oil by the salmon farming industry projected to 2020. Blue, total feeds used; red, mean% fish meal; green, mean% fish oil. Source: Tacon & Metian; From Bostock et al. 2010.
The composition of feed for carnivorous fish like salmon has changed considerably in the last years. Fishmeal and fish oil inclusion in major fish diets has declined considerably since 1995. The reduction of fishmeal in compound aquafeed for salmon declined from: 45% in 1995, to 25% in 2008 and is predicted to be only 12% in 2020 (FAO, 2012). Similarly the fish-oil inclusion level in feed for salmon has decreased. However, the global use of fish meal and fish oil by the salmon industry are projected to increase until 2020 along with the expected growth of aquaculture industry (Figure 6).
In 2005, over two thirds of salmon feeds by weight were composed of fishmeal and fish oil (Tacon, 2005;
Ellingsen and Aanondsen, 2006). Ellingsen and Aanondsen (2006) presented an example of feed ingredients
in a salmon diet as follows:
68% of fish products (35% of fish meal, 5% of fish ensilage, and 28% of fish oil),
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 21 of 69
28% of plant products (7% of maize-wheat gluten, 6% of soy products, 3% of soil oil, and 12% of wheat),
4% of vitamins, minerals, and colour
In comparison, the composition of the control diet (average Norwegian diet 2010) used in a study to
evaluate resource utilisation and eco- efficiency of Norwegian salmon farming in 2010 had lower levels of
fish products and much higher level of plant based resources (Ytrestöyl et al., 2011; Appendix Hognes et al.,
2011) :
41,4 % of fish products (24,8% of fish meal and 16,6% of fish oil),
56,4 % of plant products (12,5% of rapeseed oil, 19,6% soy protein concentrate, 4,5% pea protein concentrate, 6,4% wheat gluten, 8,5% of wheat grain, 4,9% of sunflower meal), plus
2,2 % of vitamins, minerals, and micro ingredients Continued research on fish-oil substitutes is a priority and emphasis on maintaining the quality of the
farmed species with respect to n-3 PUFAs in the final products. Additionally, in feed development it is
important to carefully consider different nutritional, environmental, and social related issues.
Feed processing The main international feed companies are Skretting (Nutreco, Netherlands), Ewos (Cermaq, Norway),
Alitec (Provimi Group, Netherlands) and Biomar (Denmark), and the salmon companies Marine Harvest-
Stolt (Nutreco) and Mainstream (Cermaq). Currently, over two-thirds of the total global salmon aquafeed
production is produced by two companies, namely Skretting (Nutreco) and Ewos (Cermaq).
The fish feed is composed mainly of proteins, fats, cereals, vitamins and minerals that are grounded, and
mixed to later on be extruded, dried, and coated to become pellets. An overview of feed manufacturing can
be found in the FAO guidelines on good aquaculture feed manufacturing practice (FAO, 2001) and good
practices for the feed industry (FAO and IFIF, 2010).
Alternative feed ingredients
Compared to other terrestrial animal and plant protein sources fishmeal is unique in that it is not only an
excellent source of high quality animal protein and essential amino acids, but is also a good source of
digestible energy, essential minerals, vitamins and lipids. The fish oil is the source of the essential
polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA). There have been questions regarding if the fish meal and fish oil
production as ingredients in feed will be able to sustain the growing aquaculture industry (Huntingon &
Hasan, 2009; Frid and Paramor, 2012; Nasopoulou and Zabetakis, 2012). Additionally, the use of marine-
based salmon feed has been debated due to the possibility of using the raw material directly for human
consumption instead of for feed. With increased production volume, the aquaculture industry will have to
find new sources for the marine-based feed in the future (Ellingsen et al., 2009).
Alternatives and the role of “feed” fisheries in fish and animal farming were synthesized based on four
regional analyses and a number of country case studies (Huntington, 2009). Recommendations were made
with regard to the sustainable sourcing of raw materials for aqua feeds in particular improved management
of feed production and product development to meet the increased global demand for fishmeal and fish
oils. Partial replacement of fish based feeds with vegetable based feed like soya is an opportunity to secure
feed availability (Nasopoulou and Zabetakis 2012; Boissy et al. 2011), however the use of soy based feed
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 22 of 69
has drawbacks since it contributes to LUC (land use changes) and loss of biodiversity. The possibilities to
use algae and microbes as alternative sources for feed are being explored. Seaweed as an ingredient for
feed has gained interest and commercial feed ingredients based on seaweed are already available in
Ireland1.
Table 1 A summary of the different fish species used in Norwegian salmon feed and their meal and oil share in tonnes for 2010 (From Ytrestøl et al (2011))
Species Fish meal (tonnes) Fish oil (tonnes)
Anchoveta, 81 832 24 655
Blue whiting 22 007 2 223
Sprat (brisling) 21 492 45 735
Norway pout 14 753 4 508
Atlantic herring- Norwegian spring-spawning 10 828 8 581
Atlantic herring- North Sea 11 243 12 699
Atlantic herring- Icelandic summer-spawning 7 166 7 479
Capelin 20 777 2 466
Sandeel 41 882 24 913
Atlantic mackerel 3 420 4 129
Chilean jack mackerel 4 805 0
Boar fish 11 886 0
Gulf menhaden 0 20922
Other/unknown 5 077 6 970
SUM FORAGE FISHERIES 257 167 165 277
Trimmings/silage 68 292 53 396
The amount of worldwide fish that can be used for feed has quotas to prevent overexploitation, since the
fish supply is limited. Fish meal and fish oil production have been fairly constant at about 6 and 1 million
tonnes/year respectively.2 It has been estimated that around 68% of fish millage (FM) and 89% of fish oil
(FO) are used for feed. Salmonid production (salmon, trout, charr and white fish) consumes 21% of FM and
56% of FO (Boissy et al. 2011). Table 1 is a summary of the different fish species used in Norwegian salmon
feed and their meal and oil share in tonnes for 2010. The percentage of fish meal that is derived from
trimmings represents more than 20% of the total fish meal. In the fish oil case the trimmings and silage are
the source of almost 25% of the total fish oil.
The trend has been that more consumable fish is used for human food and an increased part of marine by-
products are now also utilized as raw material in the feed production. In addition the salmon is also
changing from a diet dominated by marine raw material to an increased share of soy, wheat, and rape.
Usually the oil that has been used as a replacement of fish oil in fish feed is soybean, linseed, rapeseed,
sunflower, palm and olive oil. Also, other products such as olive pomace are currently being explored
(Nasopoulou and Zabetakis, 2012).
1 http://www.aquafeed.com/newsletter_pdfs/nl_000461.pdf
2 http://www.euraquaculture.info/
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 23 of 69
Organic feed
Certification for organic salmon aquaculture requires the use of organic crop ingredients and fisheries by-
product meals and oils. The use of organically certified feeds represents a 50% extra feed cost for
producers (Mente et al, 2011). Correspondingly, it has been estimated that the average premium price in
the EU for organic goods is around 15%. Moreover, price premiums for organic salmon between 26 and
99% were reported in a survey undertaken in 2002-2003 (Georgakopoulos and Thomson, 2005).
In organic aquaculture, in addition to satisfying nutritional requirements feed has to be in accordance with
sustainability principles. Acceptable ingredients in organic feeds include:
ANIMAL ORIGINATED FEEDS: Marine animal products and by-products including processed aquaculture
originated ingredients (e.g. fish meal, shrimp shell) and aquatic feed animals (e.g. worm, zooplankton). For
this category ingredients should come from sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources and cannot be
used for herbivore species or the same species (avoiding cannibalism). Trimmings from non-organic
production are acceptable until December 2014 and should not exceed 30% of the animal daily intake.
PLANT ORIGINATED FEEDS: Includes organically produced/authorized materials from aquatic origin (e.g.
seaweed, algae) and from land origin (e.g. cereals, oil seeds, legume seeds, roots, forages, etc).
MATERIALS OF MINERAL ORIGIN AND FEED ADDITIVES: Includes organically produced/authorized mineral
materials as sodium, potassium, calcium, phosphorus, magnesium and nutritional additives as vitamins,
trace elements, preservatives, antioxidants, among others. More detailed information on the ingredients
allowed and forbidden in organic feeds can be found in Mente et al. (2011).
1.3 Aquaculture farming production
In general the following steps describe the aquaculture production of net-pen systems:
The breeder produces salmon roe and delivers juvenile salmon to producer
Juvenile salmon producer uses feed, water and oxygen under controlled temperature and light conditions)
Smolt producer uses feed and water, controlled temperature and light conditions.
Fish is vaccinated,
Fish farms use feed and water, controlled temperature and light conditions (4-6 kg 10-18 months)
The cages in net-pen systems are made of a steel or plastic structure and a net.
During the operation electricity/diesel is used and a transport boat is
required
Smolt production Production of smolts is the first step of salmon aquaculture. This step takes place at on-shore freshwater hatcheries. In 2008, there were 224 concessions for smolt production facilities in Norway (FHL 2008).
Smolt production - on shore hatchery in freshwater / weight of
60- 90 -125g
Several different technologies are applied for water reuse system
A share of water that leaves the rearing unit is first treated and
then reused. This reduces freshwater and energy needed.
The development of fertilized eggs is often accelerated by heated water.
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 24 of 69
The young hatchlings feed on plankton and insects and eventually other fish. Liquid oxygen is often injected
into the water until the hatchlings reaches smolt size (60-125 g or larger).The transition from a freshwater
smolt to a salmon to be transferred to salt water takes in the wild approximately two years but in
aquaculture one year or less. In general, smaller producers buy salmon fingerlings when it is time to stock
their net cages. Large companies tend to maintain adult brood stock and sell eggs or recently hatched
animals as well as grow them out to market size. The sales from hatcheries are more profitable than
producing mature salmon. Moreover, well-run hatchery operations offset the cost of stock through profits
from the sale of excess production (www.worldwildlife.org).
Salmon farming After smoltification when the salmon has been adapted to seawater, it is transferred to floating marine net-
pens. At that stage, the salmon weights approx. 60-90g (Colt et al., 2008). The pen holds salmon but is open
to the marine environment. Growth period in the net- pen ranges from 14 to 25 months before harvesting
when the salmon has gained a weight of 2-5.5 kg. The net-pen structure usually consists of several cages
located around 100 m off-shore or in fjords for sheltering from storms (Tyedmers, 2000).
Transport from farm to slaughter / processing
Well boats transport live salmon to primary processor/slaughter
Energy use is mainly for operation of the well boat.
1.4 Processing (Slaughterhouse and packaging)
In the processing stage, the salmon is slaughtered, gutted, filleted, brined and cold smoked. Depending on
the company and supply chain the fish may be processed in Norway into final cold smoked products and
then transported to the markets in Europe (Example B).
Alternatively, the fish is transported whole with head on and iced in EPS boxes to secondary processing, a
smokehouse in Europe (France) (Example A)
Salmon slaughtering
The salmon is kept alive in sea water at shore in cages before it is slaughtered. Then the fish are pumped
into the factory where they are put into a chilled tub to be rendered unconscious (CO2 is not allowed in
Norway). Different methods are applied for slaughtering, it is either done by hand or in machines applying
electric stunning and then cutting the main artery. The fish is kept in a bleeding tub for approximately 45
minutes after slaughtering and then it is cooled down in a cooling tub (at 0°C).
Primary Processing
From the cooling tub, the salmon is transferred to gutting (automatic gutting machine). After gutting, it is
cleaned, first by hand cleaning (special vacuum pumps) and then by using an air bubble bath. After
cleaning, it is graded and packed according to size (4-5 kg). After it has been packaged in EPS boxes (approx.
20kg) with ice (5 fish in the box, and ice / fish ratio = 3/1), the package is weighted and labelled. Finally,
the boxes are loaded on pallets (27 boxes) according to requirements made by the buyer of the product.
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 25 of 69
Figure 7 Fresh salmon packed in EPS box covered with flake ice (left) and typical packages for vacuum packed smoked salmon in cardboard boxes.
Packaging
A. The whole gutted fresh fish packed in EPS (Expanded PolyStyrene) boxes. EPS boxes loaded on pallets
and transported by truck to Boulogne sur Mer where it is received by a processing company for further
processing into cold smoked salmon products and distribution in France (Chill-on project)
B. In secondary processing in Norway the salmon is first filleted and then brined /salted and cold smoked.
The smoked salmon is sliced, put on aluminium coated card-board and vacuum packed in plastic
packages. After processing, the salmon is transported by lorry to supermarkets across Switzerland
(Buchspiess et al., 2011).
Energy
The energy use is for refrigeration including the ventilated air cooling condition system and operation of
the manufacturing equipment
The main contributor to GHG emissions at the processing stage is different types of energy. The hotspots
for processing are difficult to estimate if the energy is reported as a total for the whole processing
plant/slaughterhouse and not for unit processes.
Waste in primary and secondary processing
Research suggests that aquaculture production systems can have big amounts of waste; that there is a
percentage of the catch that is not used due to legal (quota) or market (low value) reasons. A study
presents discard global estimates of around 8%, representing 410 thousand tonnes in Europe, 1.5 million
tonnes in North America, and 2.5 million tonnes in Asia. The amount of wasted product can vary a lot
depending on the country, for instance in Denmark 80% of fish trimmings are re-processed into fish meals
and oil while in France, Germany or the UK that number is between 50 and 33% and drops down to 10% in
Spain (Frid and Paramor 2012).
1.5 Secondary Processing - Smoking
The processing in the smokehouse includes the following processing steps: receiving raw material and
filleting, salting/brining, draining, cold smoking, cooling, slicing and packaging. The raw material used for
smoking in different smokehouses is processed 2-3 days up to one week after slaughtering, depending on
the manufacturing procedures and the length of transport to the smokehouse. The salmon is first filleted
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 26 of 69
and it is important to consider that while transforming the fish to fillet there will be losses and the fillet
factor can vary depending on the handling and practices as well as the condition of the raw material.
Ellingsen and Aanondsen (2006) present conversion factors between Kg of live animal to Kg of fillet of 2.3.
Salting and smoking procedures can vary regarding temperature during smoking, type of wood used and
time. Traditional cold smoking and dry salting is common, some producers use brining and salt injection
techniques. The cold-smoked salmon products are sliced and vacuum packaged or vacuum packed as whole
fillets.
Waste
Waste management in smokehouses and emissions from the smoking needs to be considered
Energy use
Type of energy used in the processing step depends on the region and the common electrical grid. The
energy use is mainly for the smoking oven and ventilated cooling chambers as well as operation of
manufacturing equipment for slicing and packaging. The finished products are vacuum packed (or modified
atmosphere) in plastic packaging material and cardboard boxes or EPS (Expanded Polystyrene) boxes
sometimes with added cooling mats.
1.6 Transport to secondary processing and retail
The main market for smoked salmon products in Europe is France followed by Germany, UK, Italy,
Be/Ne/Lux, Spain and Scandinavia (Marine Harvest, 2012). The transport from the aquaculture production
in Norway to Boulogne sur Mer (A) is used as an example for the transport to secondary processing and
retailer in the SENSE project.
Figure 8 The route between Aukra (Norway) and Vestby (Norway) (left) and the route between Vestby (Norway) and Boulogne sur Mer (France) (right).
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 27 of 69
Refrigerated transport
The current cold chain distribution system in Europe is complex and involves numerous stakeholders, who
sometimes have limited understanding of the importance of chilling and the significance of energy transfer.
Fresh fish products are often chilled in refrigerated seawater and ice (liquid ice) and after packaging in
boxes extra ice is added. As a result large quantity of ice is transported with the fish, and consequently
higher GHG emission from the transport. However, the ice ensures longer shelflife of products and prevents
spillage, which may thus actually contribute to a lower carbon footprint for the products.
Table 2 Main transportation steps in salmon production and estimated distances for A) fresh salmon (whole gutted with head on) transported in ice in EPS boxes (T4 A) to secondary processor for smoking in France (Chill-on project- UoI)
Transport Step description Estimated distance
Type of transport
T1 Transport of crop to feed producer
T2 Transport of fish to feed producer
T3 Transport of feed to salmon farming
T4 A Transport from farm to Transport hub (i.e. Aukra (Norway) – Vestby (Norway)) Transport from hub to producer (i.e.Vestby (Norway) – Boulogne sur Mer (France))
560 km 1730 km
Truck / Ferry
T4 B Transport from farm to secondary processor Short distance
Truck
T5a Transport from producer -> Distributor, Boulogne sur Mer (France)
>5 km Small truck
T5b Transport: Primary distributor -> Secondary distributor Paris(France)
250 – 1000 km
Small truck
T5c Transport: Secondary distributor -> End customer (Retail / Restaurant) (local) End customer retrieval (multiple stops) Paris(France
>50 km 250 – 1000 km
Small truck
Waste
The cold chain has many weak links and temperature fluctuation of the products are frequent in transport
in particular at handover points. This results in reduced product quality and shortened shelf life of the fresh
products, and potentially larger amount of waste and hence a larger environmental burden per kg
consumed product (Magnussen, Haugland, Torstveithemmingsen, Johansen, & Nordtvedt, 2008).
1.7 Retail
The most common secondary processed product based on Atlantic salmon, is smoked salmon. The
European market for this product was 150,000 tonnes product weight (PW) in 2011, where France and
Germany were the largest markets
At the retail sector the fish is kept in a refrigerator until the last date of sale. The shelflife of smoked fish
products is typically 2- 4 weeks depending on the level of salt used in the products.
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 28 of 69
Products not sold before the date of expiry will be destroyed (waste). Retail stores can throw away large
quantities of food. Usually, this consists of items that have reached either their best before, sell-by or use-
by dates. Food that passed the best before, and sell-by date, and even some food that passed the use-by
date is still edible at the time of disposal, but stores have widely varying policies to handle the excess food.
Some stores put effort into preventing access to poor or homeless people, while others work with
charitable organizations to distribute food. Retailers also contribute to waste as a result of their contractual
arrangements with suppliers. Failure to supply agreed quantities renders farmers or processors liable to
have their contracts cancelled. As a consequence, they plan to produce more than actually required to
meet the contract, to have a margin of error. Surplus production is often simply disposed (Tristram, 2009).
Energy
At retail the environmental impact is dependent on the energy used to refrigerate the fish products and the
refrigerants used in the cooling equipment (Parfitt, et al.). The retail sector has been mentioned as one of
the main contributors for waste. We have no specific data on the specific amount for fish/salmon products.
Refrigeration
Retail food stores have significant impacts on the environment. These are indirect emissions through the
energy consumption but also direct emissions through refrigerant leakage. Around 70% of the energy
consumed in supermarkets is electricity mainly used to drive the refrigeration equipment in the store
(other processes are lighting, heating, ventilation). Smaller super- markets and convenience stores will not
have many of the ancillary services and the proportion for refrigeration will be higher.
1.8 Consumer
At the consumers the salmon products are either fresh or smoked and consumed or stored (in a freezer or
refrigerator). Calculations emphasize that food waste at the consumer level is considerable
Energy At the consumer level the energy use is mainly to refrigerate fish products and the energy to cook/prepare
the fish and the waste that originates from the preparation and use that contribute to the environmental
impact. At this stage as for processing and retail the type of energy used refrigeration will determine the
environmental impact. There can be considerable wastage of fish at the consumer stage (Gustavsson et al.,
2011) as is the case for food in general, that the majority of food waste is related to the consumer level
(Parfit et al., 2010).
Post-consumer waste A considerable amount of food is wasted through the food chain. Gustavsson et al (2011) estimated that
approximately about 100 kilograms per person per year is wasted at the consumption stage. In a EU report
on waste it is estimated that around 90 million tonnes of food waste are generated in the EU each year
(European Commission, 2010). An estimate of food waste using both EUROSTAT and available national data
for the main sectors showed that household is contributing similar as manufacturing. Percentage
breakdown of EU27 food waste arising in the main sectors were as follows: Manufacturing (39%),
Household (42%) Retail /Wholesale (5%) and Food Service/Catering (14%). The study estimates annual food
waste generation in the EU27 at approximately 89Mt, or 179kg per capita.
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 29 of 69
2 Part 2. Key environmental challenges in salmon production
2.1 Environmental challenges for aquaculture
The environmental challenges for aquaculture have been in the focus for years as outlined in a report by
Nash (2001) (Table 3). These challenges are related to the local impacts caused by nutrient enrichment of
the ecosystem, chemical discharges and occurrences of pathogens, parasites, and escapees.
Table 3 Main areas of environmental challenges for aquaculture (Nash, 2001)
1. The impact of bio-deposits (fish faeces and uneaten feed) from farm operations on the environment beneath the
net-pens.
2. The impact on benthic communities by the accumulation of heavy metals in the sediments
3. The impact on non-target organisms by the use of therapeutic compounds (both pharmaceuticals and pesticides)
at net-pen farms.
4. The physiological effect of low dissolved oxygen levels on other biota in the water column.
5. The toxic effect of hydrogen sulfide and ammonia from the bio-deposits below a net-pen farm on other biota in
the water column.
6. The toxic effect of algal blooms enhanced by the dissolved inorganic wastes in the water column around net-pen
farms.
7. Changes in the epifaunal community caused by the accumulation of organic wastes in sediments below net-pen
farms.
8. The proliferation of human pathogens in the aquatic environment.
9. The proliferation of fish and shellfish pathogens in the aquatic environment.
10. The increased incidences of disease among wild fish.
11. The displacement of wild salmon in the marketplace by farmed salmonids.
12. The escape of Atlantic salmon - a non-native species.
13. The impact of antibiotic-resistant bacteria on native salmonids.
14. Impacts on human health and safety.
Aspects of environmental concern which are of importance for salmon aquaculture were summarised by
Ellingsen et al. (2009) (Table 4). The main impacts are caused by: Use of fossil fuels for energy and diesel for
fishing (raw material for feed) and transport; Exploitation of fish resources for feed production;
Eutrophication caused by waste feed in aquaculture, faecal matter and excretory products which influence
a) the organic enrichment of sediments and can have an effect of benthic assemblage; and b) nutrient
enrichment of the water column; Additionally, eutrophication caused by excess nutrients in agriculture for
production of vegetable part of feed must be included. Biodiversity loss because of interaction with the
wild population a) Escapes causing genetic dilution of the wild stock b) disease and parasite transfer and
potentially causing diseased wild stock and influencing health and increase in mortality; Spreading of
salmon lice; Chemical discharge originating from a) use of anti-fouling agents and b) medicines, which can
have potential influence on the loss of sensitive species (biodiversity loss); land use; and energy use in all
parts of the value chain.
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 30 of 69
The use of medicine for control of diseases and salmon lice, and the effect of escapees on the wild salmon
are specific issues of concern for salmon aquaculture. Exploitation of forage fish puts pressure on fish
stocks and efficiency of the feed and farming systems have an impact on eutrophication and nutrient
enrichment of sediments and the water column.
Table 4. Environmental impacts—aquaculture (Adapted from Ellingsen et al., 2009)
Aspect/cause Impact category (consequence) Method
Use of fossil fuel Greenhouse effect, acidification. Use of non-renewable resource
Indicator, LCA
Exploitation of fish Pressure on fish stocks (biological diversity) Indicator
Use of crops for feed Greenhouse effect , Eutrophication caused by excess nutrients (phosphorous and nitrate), Acidification
LCA, indicator
Waste feed
Nutrient enrichment of the water column, Eutrophication (Organic matter in water and
sediments), secondary greenhouse gas emissions (N2O)
LCA, indicator
Escape Threatens the wild salmon (biological diversity) Indicator
Predator control measures Biodiversity loss. Increase mortality in seabirds or marine mammals by predator control measures
Indicator, LCA
Use of delousing/ medication/ vaccines
Threatens the wild salmon (biological diversity) transmission of diseases into the wild
Indicator
Chemical discharges Ecotoxicity, loss of sensitive species (biodiversity) i.e. cooper emissions from pens/boats paintings
Indicator, LCA
Vessel/facility design Visual/smell problem Indicator
Use of drinking water Limited amount of available water LCA, indicator
Land /seafloor use Visual disturbance, limitations to coastal zone use, deterioration of the benthos,
LCA, indicator
Aquaculture technologies and preventive measures
Aquaculture technologies have been improved and preventive measures have been implemented regarding
the responsible, safe, and effective use of feeds and feed additives, chemicals and chemotherapeutants
(vaccines) to prevent diseases and medication used to control sea lice, as well as other aquaculture
practices which might reduce health and safety risks to humans and wild life. Animal welfare issues are
taken into consideraion and limits for stocking density are set as well as preventive measures and
procedures to minimize escapes.
Animal welfare issues in aquaculture
Animal welfare issues in aquaculture are linked to good aquaculture practices, the effects of disease,
handling, transport, food deprivation, and slaughter technique on fish welfare. The effects of stocking
density, is an area of welfare concern and appears to comprise of numerous interacting and case specific
factors. Stocking density/total biomass per site in Norway is limited and the procedures for licences are
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 31 of 69
regulated. Surveillance of aquaculture production in various countries includes ensuring effective
monitoring of sea lice for example in Canada (Fisheries and Oceans, Canada, 2011) and in Norway where
the IMR (Institute of Marine Research) has particular focus on the effects of sea lice on farmed fish, the
effects of escaped farm-raised fish on natural populations, and the effect of organic matter (fouling) from
farming operations on the hard and deep bottom.
Water quality monitoring
Farm operation effects on water quality are usually measured using internationally standardized methods.
To ensure the well-being of the fish most farms measure dissolved-oxygen levels on a regular basis.
Determination of metabolites such as phosphates and ammonia is sometimes required for acquiring
certification according to voluntary standards for a single farm, and this may also be required as a condition
of the farm’s operating permits. There may be concern about the cumulative and far-field effects on water
quality of several farms in one area, especially in nutrient-poor areas.
Coordinated nutrient monitoring is often included within the specifications of an Area Management
Agreement. This implies that the requirement requires data on any sampling of phosphorus, nitrogen, total
suspended solids (TSS) and biological oxygen demand (BOD). The seafood industry (capture and farmed)
must monitor for an increasing number of harmful algal species in the water column and for an increasing
number of algal toxins in seafood products.
2.2 Environmental impacts assessed by LCA
Life Cycle Impact Assessment according to ISO 14040 and 14044 (ISO 2006a, 2006b) and the ILCD handbook
(JRC, 2010) will be applied in the SENSE project as a tool to assess the key environmental impacts of food
supply chains. The standards describe the method and basic requirements for undertaking an LCA. LCA aims
at providing a comprehensive view of environmental impacts. However, not all types of impacts are equally
well covered in a typical LCA. The need for standardized methodology to assess the environmental impact
of products has been emphasised by numerous authors and organization (Ziegler et al., 2012). Standards
for carbon foot printing are being developed for example ISO 14067 expected to be finalized for publication
in March 2014 and ISO 14065:2007 (Greenhouse gases - Requirements for greenhouse gas validation and
verification bodies for use in accreditation or other forms of recognition). British standards (BSI) have
developed a specific standard on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions for goods and services and guidelines
(PAS2050/2011) and a seafood-specific GHG emission standard (PAS 2050-2:2012). The carbon footprint of
a product has received a lot of attention but it is limited to studying only the environmental impact
category “global warming potential.” Life cycle assessments of food, which cover more impact classes than
just climate impacts, have been performed since the 1990s. Most of the studies include in addition to
climate impacts also eutrophication, acidification, and energy use. Some studies include also land and
water use, human toxic effects, ecotoxic effects, tropospheric ozone formation, and ozone depletion.
ILCD handbook gives guidelines for selection of characterisation methods to assess the following environmental impact classes
1. Climate change, 2. Ozone depletion, 3. Human toxicological effects, 4. Particulate matter/Respiratory Inorganic
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 32 of 69
5. Ionizing radiation 6. Photochemical ozone formation 7. Acidification 8. Eutrophication 9. Ecotoxicological effects 10. Land use 11. Resource depletion 12. Other impacts (noise, accidents, desiccation, erosion, and salination)
Environmental impacts of aquaculture production systems have been assessed by Life Cycle Assessment
(LCA) in several studies where both regional impacts (e.g. eutrophication and acidification) and global
impacts (e.g. climate change and ozone depletion) have been considered. A review of existing literature on
the application of LCA for seafood was recently carried out to summarize the range of available reports and
studies regarding GHG emissions from seafood supply chains (Parker, 2012). For tracing of nutrient flows
and estimating the nutrient retention efficiency, mass balance models are more suited than LCA models.
Nutrient balance accounting to estimate outputs of phosphorus, nitrogen and suspended solids was
recently reported for Norwegian salmon farming by Ytrestøyl et al. (2011).
Figure 9 A generic aquaculture supply chain from feed to consumer showing different boundaries (dotted lines), the input
resources and the output emissions influencing the environmental impacts as have been assessed in LCA studies on aquaculture systems and salmon supply chain. Resource budget accounting has also been performed for salmon.
Functional Unit
Most LCAs have reported the environmental impacts relative to a given mass of live weight fish or fillet.
Very few have extended the life cycle to incorporating processing activities and additional ingredients for
value-added products (Parker, 2012). In some cases, analysis of these additional processes have identified
non-fishery ingredients as important drivers of GHG emissions; such is the case for canned mackerel with
added oil (Buchspies et al., 2006) and fish burgers (Svanes et al., 2011). The following Table 5 gives
examples of functional units, allocation and tools used for different studies on LCA on salmon. It is
important to notice that 3 out of the 4 cases have as a system boundary “farm gate”. Not including
processing facilities for instance implies that the impacts of extra processes and ingredients are not
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 33 of 69
considered as stated before. However, some studies on seafood have also included processing and
transport steps (Ellingsen et al., 2009; Ziegler et al., 2012)
Table 5 System boundaries, functional units and allocation for salmon LCAs (Henriksson et al, 2012)
Reference System Functional Unit
System boundary
Allocation Software Database
Pelletier and Tyedmers, (2007)
Salmon feeds
1 tonne of live weight
Farm gate Gross nutritional energy
SimaPro v.7.0 Ecoinvent v.2, personal communication
Ayer and Tyedmers, (2009)
Various 1 tonne of live weight
Farm gate Gross nutritional energy
SimaPro v.7.0 Ecoinvent 1.2, IDEMAT 2001, LCA Food 2005, personal communication
Pelletier et al. (2009)
Cage 1 tonne live weight
Farm gate Gross nutritional energy
Simapro v.7.1.8 Ecoinvent v.2
Ellingsen and Aanondsen (2006)
Net cage
200 g fillet Market Mass/ Economic value
SimaPro v.6.0 ETH-ESU 96, Buwal 250
The functional unit in many studies focusing only on the production was ”tonne of live weight” (Ayers and
Tyedmers (2009), whereas studies that covered the whole supply chain (taking into account the processing
and transport to retail), had either a functional unit of ”1kg of fillet” (Buchspiess et al., 2011; Ellingsen et
al., 2009) or portion (i.e. 200g fillet). Calculations of live salmon to the functional unit of 1 kg edible part has
been assumed as 1.74 kg of live salmon would yield 1 kg edible fillet (Winther et al., 2009; Hognes et al.,
2011)
Allocation LCA studies include several methodological choices which are uncertain and may potentially influence their
results. Examples include allocation methods, time limits for the inventory analysis and choices of
characterisation methods for the impact assessment. The choice of allocation procedure is one of the most
controversial methodological issues in LCA. The need for allocation arises when the environmental loads
must be divided between two or more different processes/co-products. According to the ISO 14044
standard for LCA, allocation shall be dealt with in agreement with the three following steps (ISO 14044:
2006):
1. Wherever possible, allocation should be avoided.
2. Where allocation cannot be avoided, the inputs and outputs of the system should be partitioned
between its different products or functions in a way that reflects the underlying physical
relationships between them.
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 34 of 69
3. Where physical relationship alone cannot be established or used as the basis for allocation, the
inputs should be allocated between the products and functions in a way that reflects other
relationships between them.
Furthermore, the ISO 14044 (ISO, 2006) states that when two or more allocation procedures seem to be
relevant a sensitivity analysis needs to be carried out to show the impact of the different allocation
procedures. The ISO standard also requires that a clear justification is made on the chosen allocation
method/s. Currently, step three above, is the most frequently selected allocation procedure in published
seafood studies, i.e. allocation based on other relationships between input and output (Svanes et al, 2011).
Most of these published LCA studies have applied economic allocation, although mass allocation and
system expansion have also been applied (Ayer et al., 2007). Economic allocation is however not stable
over time as economic allocation is sensitive to changes in market prices (Svanes et al., 2011; Ytrestøyl et
al., 2011). The same holds true for system expansion. Additionally, the economic value does not represent
the biophysical flow of materials and energy in seafood product systems. On the other side it reflects the
driving factors behind the production patterns and thus is useful in most cases where the attribution of
environmental impacts to economic products is of interest. In any case the choice of allocation method has
to be in line with the underlying questions of the study and the goal and scope definition.
It has been stressed that more research is needed for development of more relevant allocation procedures
(Ayer et al, 2007; Tyedmers & Pelletier, 2007; Pelletier & Tyedmers, 2011). Many researchers agree that a
standardised method to evaluate the environmental impacts is needed using harmonised allocation
method. However, the choice of allocation procedures will depend on the intended goal of the study and
the questions to be answered. Allocation according to gross chemical energy content has e.g. been
suggested. Svanes et al. (2011) performed a case study to test the differences between mass, economic,
novel hybrid and gross energy content allocations. The difference between allocation methods was found
to be large, with the largest differences when using economic allocation while mass allocation gave the
smallest variations. Moreover, the energy allocation results were very close to those of mass allocation.
2.3 LCA studies on seafood
LCA is becoming a widely used tool to create environmental profiles of different food products. Over the
last years the number of LCAs has grown steadily. Table 6 is a compilation of different impact categories
that have been studied while assessing seafood production systems. According to the overview (Table 6),
LCA studies on seafood have included global warming potential, acidification potential, eutrophication
potential and ozone layer depletion potential. Additionally, some studies have also focused on abiotic
depletion potential, photochemical oxidant formation potential, cumulative energy demand/primary
energy use ratio, and to a minor extent on human toxicity potential, energy consumption, or eco-toxicity
potential.
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 35 of 69
Table 6 Impact categories reported in different LCA studies on seafood processing or supply chain (From Vázquez-Rowe et al., 2012)
Impact categories in seafood processing or supply chain studies
Eyjo
lfsd
ott
ir e
t al
(2
00
3)
Zie
gle
r e
t al
(2
00
3)
Thra
ne
(2
00
4)
Ellin
gse
n &
Aan
on
dse
n
(20
06
)
Ho
spid
o e
t al
(2
00
6)
Fiks
eau
ne
t (2
00
7)
Pe
lleti
er
et
al (
20
07
)
Pe
lleti
er
& T
yed
me
rs (
20
10
)
Zie
gle
r &
Val
en
tin
sso
n
(20
08
)
Sun
d (
20
09
)
Fet
et
al (
20
10
)
Fult
on
(2
01
0)
Par
ker
(20
11
)
Svan
es
et
al (
20
11
a)
Svan
es
et
al (
20
11
b)
Váz
qu
ez-
Ro
we
et
al (
20
11
a)
Zie
gle
r e
t al
(2
01
1)
Váz
qu
ez-
Ro
we
et
al (
20
12
)
Species, products* C C P CS T P V V L C P
C Po S
K C C H Sh O
Energy Consumption
Global warming Potential
Abiotic depletion Potential
Acidification Potential
Eutrophication Potential
Ozone depletion Potential
Photochem. oxidant formation Potential
Cum. energy demand/ primary energy use
Human toxicity Potential
Freshwater aquatic eco-toxicity potential
Eco
-to
xici
ty
Po
ten
tial
Eco
-to
xici
ty
Po
ten
tial
Ec
o-t
oxi
city
Po
ten
tial
Marine aquatic eco-toxicity potential
Terrestrial eco-toxicity potential
*Species or products: C=cod, P= fish products; S=salmon; T=tuna; L=lobster; Po= pollock; K= krill; H=hake; Sh=shrimp O=octopus; V= seafood
An overview of the resource use in the processing steps of aquaculture salmon production, from cradle to
grave are shown in Figure 10 and the main environmental impact categories of the salmon supply chain as
estimated based on the reported LCA studies.
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 36 of 69
Figure 10 Flow diagram of aquaculture salmon production from cradle to grave showing input resources, output emissions and the most common environmental impacts assessed by LCA (climate change, ozone depletion, eutrophication, acidification, terrestrial and marine aquatic and sediment toxicity, and challenges that cause threats to biodiversity (chemical discharges (antifoulants and
medicines), pathogens, escapees, and sea lice)
Fisheries
harvesting
Crop
production
Processing
Feed production
Breeder
Juvenile
production
Smolt production
Salmon farmingReusable
water
Waste-water
Slaughter
A)Pre -processing:
gutting, chilling
Cut off,
trimmings
Packaging EPS
boxes B)
Value added
products
Processing:
brining / smoking
Packaging and
chillingSolid waste
Landfill or
MSW
combustion
Retail
Solid wasteLandfill or
MSW
combustionConsumer
Recycle
CFC/HCFC
GHG
NOx
Supplements
Pesticides
Medication/Vaccines
T2
T1
T4 A
Fertilizers
Energy use (Diesel)
Land useWater useBioresource use
Ingredients, Salt
Refrigerants
Cleaners
Diesel
Electricity
Energy useLand use
Seafloor useWater use
T4 B
Energy use
Land useWater use
Energy useLand use
Water use
T5
T3
GHG
GHG
Eutrophication
Biodiversity, Ecotoxicity
Acidification
Climate change
Climate change
Eutrophication
Climate change
Climate change
CFC/HCFCRefrigerant
SO2- eq
Ozone depletion
Ozone depletion
NOx-
GHG
FIFO
FCR
Cooling / Ice
Retail Consumer
Salmon processing
Feed
Aquaculture production
T6
Biodiversity: Escapee, Pathogens,
Salmon lice,
Ecotoxicity
AcidificationSO2- eq
Acidification
SO2- eq
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 37 of 69
2.4 LCA studies on aquaculture supply chain
Studies on LCA on aquaculture species (Atlantic salmon, Rainbow trout, Arctic char, turbot, sea bass, tilapia
and shellfish) have focused on the feed and production systems and the characteristics of different farming
systems (Parker, 2012).
Studies on salmon and marine net-pen production systems have been carried out for Norway, Canada, UK
and Chile, marine cages in Scotland, marine floating bag, saltwater flow through system and land based
recirculating systems in Canada (lca.seafish.org). LCA studies on aquaculture production related to the
salmon supply chain are further explored herein to gain an overview on the characteristics of different
regions in Europe and in other countries where salmon aquaculture is common (Canada, US, UK and Chile)
and how the environmental impacts from aquaculture may affect the regions differently. Feed production
is most often the major contributor to environmental impacts in conventional aquaculture systems (Aubin
et al., 2006; Ellingsen and Aanondsen, 2006; Tyedmers and Pelletier,2007; Winther et al., 2009: Ziegler et
al., 2012), while the impact of energy use is dominating in recirculation systems (Aubin et al., 2009; Ayer
and Tyedmers, 2009) More recent studies have included the impact of processing and transport (Ellingsen
et al.,2009; Winther et al., 2009; Ziegler et al., 2012).
2.5 Feed - Bioresource Use
Exploitation of fish for feed – composition of feed
The comparative life cycle impacts of feed production within and among regions, is of interest in the overall
environmental impact of salmon production. In general, fish- and livestock-derived inputs contribute
disproportionately on a per-unit mass basis when compared with crop-derived inputs.
Figure 11 Energy use, bioresource use and GWP for aquaculture salmon ”cradle to gate” fed with traditional diet in the four
countries Norway, UK, Canada and Chile (From: Pelletier et al. 2009)
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 38 of 69
Studies by Pelletier and Tyedmers (2007), Pelletier et al. (2009) and Boissy et al. (2011) highlight the
environmental impact of bioresource use reflected by different feed composition (Table 7). When
comparing by LCA farmed salmon in Canada, Chile, Norway and UK the environmental impacts reflected
the different feed composition for the different regions (Pelletier et al., 2009) (Figure 11).
Fish and poultry-derived ingredients generated substantially greater impacts than crop-derived ingredients
in the study of Pelletier & Tyedmers (2007) (Table 7). Furthermore, replacing fish meals/oils from dedicated
reduction fisheries with fisheries by-product meals/oils markedly increased the environmental impacts of
feed production, largely due to the higher energy intensity of fisheries for human consumption, and low
meal/oil yield rates of fisheries by-products. In this case an organic production failed to reduce the
environmental impacts of feed production for the suite of impact categories considered (Pelletier &
Tyedmers, 2007).
Table 7 GWP, acidification, eutrophication, and use of energy, water and bioresources reported in different LCA studies of the farm-gate production of salmon in Norway, UK, Canada, and Chile (Adapted from Pelletier and Tyedmers, 2007, Pelletier et al., 2009 and
Boissy et al., 2011)
References Functional
unit
Region / Species / System /Allocation
GW
P
Aci
dif
ica
tio
n
Eutr
op
hic
atio
n
Ene
rgy
Wat
er
use
Bio
reso
urc
e u
se
kg CO2eq
kg SO2eq
kg PO4-eq
MJ m3 kg C
Pelletier & Tyedmers (2007) Canada / Salmon 1 tonne feed
(C) Conventional feed Gross nutritional energy content
1,400 12.6 5.3 18,100 10,600
(OA) Organic crop ingredients /conventional fish and poultry ingredient
1,250 11.8 4.9 17,100 10,600
(OBP) Organic crop ingredients/fisheries by-products ingredients
1,810 24.6 6.7 26,900 45,100
(ORF) Organic crop ingredients/reduced fisheries ingredients
690 2.3 2.3 9,860 6,300
Pelletier et al., (2009) 1 tonne live weight salmon
NO (40 % crops, 58,6 % fish) 1,790 17.1 41.0 26,200 111,100
UK (30 % crops, 66,6 % fish (use of trimmings))
3,270 29.7 62.7 47,900 137,200
Canada (50% crops, 31,6 % fish, 19,9 % livestock)
2,370 28.1 74.9 31,200 18,400
Chile (40% crops, 42,2 % fish, 15% livestock)
2,300 20.4 51.3 33,200 56,600
Boissy, et al. (2011) 1 tonne live weight salmon
Atlantic salmon / standard diet 2,150 10.3 40.2 32,159 30
Atlantic salmon / low marine-fishery capture diet
2,480 13.4 43.7 31,688 34.1
Rainbow trout / standard diet 2,220 12.7 42.2 55,730 72.6
Rainbow trout / low marine-fishery capture diet
2,220 13.5 47.9 55,057 69.5
Analysis including feed production and fish production (slaughtering, processing and sales NOT included)
Allocation: Gross nutritional/chemical energy content; Functional Unit: live weight tonne of salmon or salmon feed
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 39 of 69
Crop-derived inputs accounted for only one-third of UK diets but almost 50% of feed milled in Canada. In
contrast, the proportion of fish-derived ingredients is the lowest in Canada (31.6%) and Chile (42.2%), and
much higher in Norway (58.6%) and the UK (66.6%) (Pelletier et al., 2009). Livestock co-products were small
but noteworthy contributions to feeds milled in both Canada (19.9%) and Chile (15.1%). In Norway and the
UK, fish-derived inputs contributed an average of 71% and 84%, respectively, across impact categories
while only accounting for 58% and 66%, respectively, of the mass of the feeds milled. Similarly, in Canada
and Chile, fish- plus livestock-derived inputs accounted for just over 50% of the mass of all feed inputs
(Pelletier et al. 2009). This difference in fish derived input is clearly reflected in the high value of the biotic
resource use (BRU) caused by the application of trimmings in the UK feed and fish oil and fish meal in
Norway compared to lower ratios in Chile and Canada. However, Torrisen et al. (2011) questioned that the
environmental impacts should be considerably lower when feeds contained reduced proportions of fish
and poultry-derived ingredients, emphasizing the importance of co-product allocation procedures. Further,
low-impact fishery ingredients like menhaden meal used in Chile outperformed high-impact crop
ingredients like wheat gluten (Pelletier et al. 2009) (Figure 11). Additionally of interest is the hypothetical
replacement of all fishery derived ingredients with menhaden in 2007 Norwegian salmon production, which
could have reduced the industry’s greenhouse gas emissions by 57%.
The environmental consequences of replacing fish meal and fish oil with plant-based sources in salmonid
feeds were investigated using LCA by Boissy et al. (2011). Two scenarios of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)
and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) farming were compared. The first scenario used a Standard Diet
(STD) with high levels of fish meal and fish oil, and the second a Low Marine-Fishery-Capture Diet (LFD) in
which fish meal and fish oil were replaced by plant protein and oil sources.
Table 8 adapted from Boissy et al (2011) shows the different feed composition in fish oil based feed versus
a vegetable oil based feed and the origin of the ingredients. The assessment confirmed the substantial
contribution of feed to the environmental burdens of fish production and the LFD scenario led to a
significant decrease in biotic resource use compared to the STD scenario with the same total energy
demand. However, the climate change potential was approximately 18% higher in the vegetable oil based
feed for salmon 2,150 kg CO2eq compared to 2,480 kg CO2eq (Table 7)
Table 8 Example of feed composition in standard (STD) fish oil based feed versus a vegetable oil based feed (LFD low fish diet) and origin of ingredients (adapted From Boissy et al., (2011))
Ingredients 3mm Origin
STD LFD
Wheat 7 7.2 France
Wheat gluten 15 France
Fish meal 32 Peru
Soybean meal 12.5 Brazil
Soy protein concentrate 5 Brazil
Fish oil 22.8 - Norway
Camelina oil - 4.5 USA
Palm oil - 7 Malaysia
Rapeseed oil - 11.4 Germany
Corn gluten meal 60 4.3 USA
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 40 of 69
Environmental impacts of feeds depended highly on the geographic origins of feed ingredients from fishery
(e.g., fish oil from Norway or Peru) and from terrestrial agricultural crop species (e.g., palm oil or rapeseed
oil). This study demonstrated the importance of a multicriteria method to give stakeholders the most
accurate information on the potential consequences of replacing fishery products with plant-based sources
in aquafeeds (Boissy et al., 2011).
When switching from animal based feed to plant based feed it is important to consider factors as
eutrophication or terrestrial eco-toxicity (http://www.euraquaculture.info/) and LUC coupled to soy bean
production, as well as nutritional differences e.g. amino acids (Nasopoulou and Zabetakis, 2012; Mente et
al, 2011)
Generally, fish growth rates are similar in systems that use standard fish based feed versus systems with
mix plant-fish based diets, nevertheless this fact is dependent on the species, level of replacement, and
production system (Nasopoulou and Zabetakis 2012; Boissy et al. 2011).
Feed Conversion Ratio
Different fish species vary in their food consumption patterns and therefore in their feed needs and habits.
Some fish species are carnivores and therefore their food conversion rate is not particularly efficient.
Salmon for instance has, in nature, a prey-predator efficiency conversion of about 1 to 10, making
necessary 10 kg of prey to produce 1kg of salmon (http://www.aquamaxip.eu/). The EU project
“Consensus” (http://www.euraquaculture.info/) estimated that to produce 1kg of farmed salmon there is a
need of about 3 kg of wild fish as feed (figure estimated without including recovering of meal and oil from
aquaculture waste). It is important to note that due to better production systems and improvements on
feed producing technologies the conversion ratio in general is improving rapidly. The feed composition
differs for different regions and consequently the feed conversion ratio (FCR) as has been reported for
salmon in the UK, Norway, Canada, and Chile (Table 9). These differences are due to for example changes in
feed composition and feeding technologies, but also regional variations. While replacing fish based feed
with vegetable based feed it is important to consider that some plants have as a component phytic acid,
which reduce salmon’s intestines ability to absorb phosphorus. FCRs for many aquaculture species
dependent on industrially manufactured compound aquafeeds are projected to decline as a result of
improved feed efficiency and management (FAO, 2012).
Table 9 Feed conversion factors for salmon (kg feed per kilo salmon to slaughter in live weight)
Reference Norway UK Canada Chile
Pelletier and Tyedmers (2007) (FCR - feed to flesh) 1.3
Pelletier et al., 2009 ~1.1 ~1.33 ~1.31 (~1.5)
Ellingsen and Aanondsen (2009) 1.29
Norwegian Fisheries and Aquaculture Association (FHL, 2010) 1.3
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 41 of 69
FIFO (fish in – fish out)
Two decades ago, the main ingredients for Norwegian salmon feed were fish meal and fish oil. However, in
2010 only 52% of the ingredients were of marine origin, and the remaining 47% of plant origin (on dry
matter basis) and added supplements (Ytrestøyl et al., 2011). This change in diet has influenced changes in
the fish-in-fish-out (FIFO) ratio (the amount of forage fish used to produce the amount of fish oil and meal
required to produce 1 kg of salmon) in Norwegian diet during the last decades. FIFO is used as a measure of
the amount of marine resources that is consumed in the production of farmed fish. The calculation of the
FIFO ratio is based on two conversion ratios. The first is the conversion ratio of forage fish into fish meal
(FM) and fish oil (FO). The second conversion ratio is the amount of feed (kg) consumed to produce one kg
of salmon (economic feed conversion ratio, eFCR).The FIFO ratio for fish oil and fish meal in Norwegian fish
farming has decreased from 7.2 and 4.4 in 1990 to 2.3 and 1.4, respectively, in 2010. When correcting for
use of by-products from capture fisheries, the 2010 values were 1.8 and 1.1, respectively (Ytrestøyl et al.,
2011).
Nutrient – balance accounting and resource budget (protein fat energy, phosphorous , n-3 fatty acids EPA, DHA). Several indicators and methods for measuring sustainability and eco-efficiency of aquaculture productions
have been developed, such as, marine nutrient dependency ratio and various nutrient retention ratios.
Evaluation of sustainability of aquaculture is complicated, and different aspects have to be addressed. The
outcome will depend on which impacts are included in the analysis and how the impacts are allocated
between co-products in production processes that generate several products. “There is currently no single
method that is robust enough to cover all environmental impacts related to food production and several
methods must be used in combination to evaluate the eco efficiency of food production” (Ytrestøyl et al.,
2011).
Nutrient – balance accounting to estimate outputs of phosphorus, nitrogen and suspended solids was
reported for Norwegian salmon farming by Ytrestøyl et al. (2012). For tracing of nutrient flows and
estimating the nutrient retention efficiency mass balance models are more suited than LCA models. Access
to representative data on nutrient composition of the feed, final product and, particularly in the parts of
the salmon that are not consumed by humans, was vital for tracking the nutrient flows when making a
resource budget for the Norwegian salmon production in 2010.
The Norwegian aquaculture industry has an accurate system for reporting detailed aquaculture production
data, and information of ingredients used for feed production in 2010 was provided by BioMar, Ewos and
Skretting. Marine Harvest provided data on nutrient content in salmon. Data on fish composition was also
obtained from official databases (Nifes sjømatdata, Matvaretabellen). With this information, the total
nutrient flow in Norwegian salmon farming in 2010 could be estimated.
Phosphorus is a limiting element in vegetable (as fertilizer) and animal (as feed) systems and as such should
be carefully managed. In Norway the 3 leading feed producing companies (BioMar, Ewos, and Skretting)
used 12046 tons of phosphorus for Salmon feed. Of this amount 27% was retained in the salmon while the
remaining 73% went to the sea (Ytrestøl et al, 2011).
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 42 of 69
2.6 Feed - Energy use and GWP
Feed plays a critical role in GHG performance of aquaculture. Reports from LCA studies agree that the
production of feed from fisheries and crops accounts for the majority of salmon aquaculture’s energy use
and greenhouse gas emissions (Aubin et al., 2006; Ellingsen and Aanondsen, 2006; Tyedmers and Pelletier
(2007); Winther et al., 2009: Ziegler et al., 2012). Fuel use in fishing, and feed production in aquaculture are
key contributors to greenhouse gas emission (Ziegler et al., 2012). Life cycle assessment (LCA) carried out
by Tyedmers and Pelletier (2007) showed that dependence on energy in aquaculture is correlated with
production intensity mainly due to production and delivery of feed in agreement with studies on rainbow
trout (Grönroos et al. 2006). Another factor to consider is the local availability of crops and fish feed
ingredients, since sourcing of raw material for feed processing can involve energy demanding
transportation. Feed producers source raw materials from diverse fish, crop, and livestock sources globally,
each with characteristic resource dependencies and environmental impacts. The main hotspots in the feed
primary production are the emissions from crop production (mainly fertilizer (N) and GHG emissions from
burning diesel in operation of vessels in fisheries and manufacturing of fish meal (different energy sources).
It has been estimated that in aquaculture systems feed production is often accountable for up to 80-90% of
the total energy needs and environmental impacts (Ytrestøyl et al., 2011). In a study by Winther et al.
(2010) the feed production accounted for 75% (2,72 kg CO2eq /kg fish ) of the total GWP of all process
steps of salmon produced in Norway and transported by truck to Paris (Figure 12).
Figure 12 GWP in process steps of a salmon supply chain (Adapted from Winther et al., 2010)
Comparison of the contribution of feed ingredients and different processes to CO2 footprint showed large
contribution of the soya protein concentrate, which was similar to the contribution of the combined effect
of production of marine meal and oil. If LUC coupled to soy bean production would be included the
contribution from soy would be even higher (Hognes et al., 2011; Ytrestøyl et al., 2011). Transport from
crop grower to feed production manufacturers and further to salmon production need to be taken into
account. Environmental cost consideration of shipping and transporting fishmeal by container from South
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 43 of 69
America to Europe including fossil fuels burnt and GHG emissions is of interest in this context Huntington
(2004).
2.7 Feed - Land use
Natural resources availability is limited. There is a need to measure and control the impacts of different
activities and how they will influence future access to resources. This is especially relevant for aquaculture
production considering use of forage fish in feed and the trend to switch from a seafood based feed to a
mixed plant-seafood feed. In a recent study by Hognes et al. (2011) the area used for farmed Norwegian
salmon was estimated as follows:
Occupational agricultural land was calculated for the crops in the feed as the land area occupied by the
growing crops (land use/kg crop /year) and other land use at the farm was not included. The results show
that the total agricultural area required for the Norwegian salmon 2010 was 3.3 m2 per kg edible products
while Swedish chicken and pig occupied 7.0 and 8.4 m2 per kg edible products, respectively. The high
marine feed occupied only 0.3 m2 agricultural land per kg edible products
Sea area primary-production-required (PPR) to sustain the fish used in the salmon feed and benthic area
that is influenced by fishing gear is considered for the fishery ingredients in the feed. In this case the
benthic effect of fishing gear on the bottom was not relevant since pelagic gears are not in contact with the
bottom. The PPR was calculated using trophic levels for the species together with levels of primary-
production-per-area in the Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) where they are caught (Hognes et al., 2011 /
Ytrestöyl et al., 2011). The total sea area required to sustain the primary production for production of
marine ingredients in the 2010 diet was 115m2/kg edible product. If only marine ingredients form the North
Atlantic would be used the area required was 153m2 sea area/kg edible products, since the respective
species used for fish meal and oils occupy higher trophic levels in the marine food web compared to South-
American forage species (Figure 13).
Figure 13. Agricultural area occupation and sea-primary-production area required (Source: Ytrestöyl et al., 2011)
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 44 of 69
Seafloor impact of fisheries and discards
Regarding the use of fish for feed the assessment of seafloor impacts are of interest. Recent studies on the
application of LCA methodology in fisheries management involve assessment of fishing efforts on seafloor
impact and energy use and proposed new indicators in relation to assessing the impact of fishing gear. This
implies that total discarded mass could increasingly be distinguished from potential impact by applying two
new concepts: primary production requirements and threatened species affected (Hornborg et al., 2012;
Nilsson and Ziegler, 2007).
Land use change (LUC) is measured as the percentage of global land cover that is converted to crop land, to
further on distribute deforestation emissions over time. Until now there is no well accepted methodology
on how to calculate LUC. Schmidt et al. (2012) proposed a model in which through the use of IPCC´s GWP,
amortisation is avoided. Advantages of the model are that it can be used with attributional and
consequential LCA and that it considers land occupation upstream effects.
2.8 Aquaculture - Eutrophication
Assessment of different rearing techniques
For traditional fish cage aquaculture, increased amounts of organic matter, dissolved and particulate
nutrients loads, particularly organic phosphorus and nitrogen (in the form of ammonia) may encourage
eutrophication with negative consequences for pelagic and benthic communities.
Accumulation of organic wastes (fish faeces and waste food) under aquaculture farms may also induce local
organic enrichment. Sediment organic enrichment may lead to increased oxygen uptake, ammonium
release and sulphate reduction and a decrease in the abundance, biomass and diversity of benthic
invertebrates at farm sites as compared to reference sites (Hargrave, 2005). The overview in Table 10 from
the different studies mentioned before, further emphasizes that the eutrophication potential is highly
depended on the type of rearing system and the feed conversion factor in the different studies.
Further, the LCA study of Jerbi et al. (2012) on different rearing systems (traditional raceway TR and
cascade raceway CR) of Mediterranean sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) demonstrated the different
environmental load of the two systems. The impact categories considered on a global level were global
warming potential (GWP), net primary production use (NPPU) and energy use (EU). At the regional scale
eutrophication potential (EP), acidification potential (AP), water dependence (WD) and surface use (SU)
were estimated. The diet process contributed to the majority of the impacts in both systems. The sea bass
rearing stage was the main contributor of eutrophication. Feed efficiency appeared to have a dominant
influence on the level of impacts involving diet process. The difference in the environmental load is the
direct result of the relative ability of fish reared in TR to better convert their diet into biomass with a feed
conversion ratio of 1.7, compared to 2.1 in CR.
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 45 of 69
Table 10 Eutrophication reported in LCA studies of different rearing systems and feed composition for salmonids
References Functional unit
Region / Species / System Eutrophication
kg PO4-eq
Pelletier and Tyedmers (2007) Canada / Salmon 1 tonne feed
(C) Conventional feed 5.3
(OA) Organic crop ingredients /conventional fish and poultry ingredient
4.9
(OBP) Organic crop ingredients/fisheries by-products ingredients 6.7
(ORF) Organic crop ingredients/reduced fisheries ingredients 2.3
Pelletier et al. (2009) 1 tonne live weight salmon
NO (40 % crops, 58,6 % fish ingredients) 41.0
UK (30 % crops, 66,6 % fish ingredients (use of trimmings)) 62.7
Canada (50% crops, 31,6 % fish, 19,9 % livestock) 74.9
Chile (40% crops, 42,2 % fish, 15% livestock) 51.3
Boissy, et al. (2011) 1 tonne live weight fish
Atlantic salmon / standard diet 40.2
Atlantic salmon / low marine-fishery capture diet 43.7
Rainbow trout / standard diet 42.2
Rainbow trout / low marine-fishery capture diet 47.9
Aubin, et al. (2009) 1 tonne live weight fish
Rainbow trout in fresh water 65.91
Sea-bass in sea cages 108.85
Turbot in an inland re-circulating system 76.97
Ayer & Tyedmers (2009) Atlantic salmon Atlantic char 1 tonne live weight fish
Conventional marine net-pen system - Salmon - British Columbia 35.3
Marine floating bag system – Salmon - British Columbia 31.8
Land-based saltwater flow-through system - Salmon - British Columbia 29.9
Land-based freshwater recirculating system - Arctic Char - Nova Scotia) 8.4
2.9 Aquaculture – GWP and energy use
Different rearing systems - GWP, acidification and energy use
Feed production is most often the major contributor to environmental impacts in conventional aquaculture
systems while the impact of energy use is often dominating in recirculation systems. The variety in energy
use in the production on the farm depends on a lot of factors, such as water flow and the power supply
(from the common grid or by diesel engines on the facilities). Concerns have been raised because of
unanticipated impacts in assessments of the sustainability of closed-containment systems. Although these
systems may have less impact on biodiversity loss and eutrophication, they may have more global impacts
since they are often more energy and material demanding. Table 11 is an overview of LCA studies for
different rearing systems from cradle to gate for salmonids showing results of environmental impacts.
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 46 of 69
Table 11 LCA for different rearing systems from cradle to gate for showing results of environmental impacts for the functional unit 1 tonne of live fish weight
References Type of system
GW
P
Aci
dif
ica
tio
n
Eutr
op
hic
atio
n
Ene
rgy
Wat
er
Kg CO2eq
Kg SO2eq
Kg PO4eq MJ m3
Aubin, et al., (2009)
Rainbow trout in fresh water 2753 19.17 65.91 78,229 52.6
Sea-bass in sea cages 3601 25.30 108.85 54,656 48,785
Turbot in an inland re-circulating system
6017 48.28 76.97 290,986 4.8
Ayer & Tyedmers (2009) Atlantic salmon and Atlantic char
Conventional marine net-pen system 2073 18 35.3 26,9000
Marine floating bag system 1900 15.8 31.8 21,1000
Land-based saltwater flow-through system
2770 16.6 29.9 97,9000
Land-based freshwater recirculating system
28,000 22.6 8.4 34,7000
The impact of different production system used in the Mediterranean area, were studied by Aubin et al.
(2009). They used LCA to compare three fish farms that represented contrasting intensive production
systems: rainbow trout in freshwater raceways in France, sea-bass in sea cages in Greece, and turbot in an
inland re-circulating system in France. Emission of nitrogen and phosphorus accounted for more than 90%
of each farm’s potential eutrophication impact. In the trout and sea-bass systems, feed production was the
major contributor to potential climate change and acidification impacts and net primary production use
(NPPU). In these systems, the main source of variation for environmental impacts was the feed conversion
ratio. On the contrary potential climate change and acidification impacts were largely influenced by energy
consumption on-site in the turbot re-circulating system. Similarly, according to a LCA study on two rearing
techniques (traditional raceway TR and cascade raceway CR) of Mediterranean sea bass (Dicentrarchus
labrax) (Jerbi et al., 2012), the major part of the energy consumption was due to the rearing phase through
water pumping and oxygen injection and production. The main difference between the two systems was
the water recirculation flow through system and tanks disposition. For all the studied impacts, the
assessment revealed that CR presented more environmental burden than TR. The major differences
between the two farming systems lay in Global Warming Potential GWP and energy use.
Ayers and Tydemers (2008) performed life cycle assessment (LCA) to quantify and compare the potential
environmental impacts of culturing salmonids in a conventional marine net-pen system with those of three
reportedly environmentally-friendly alternatives; a marine floating bag system; a land-based saltwater flow
through system; and a land-based freshwater recirculating system. Results indicated that while the use of
closed-containment systems may reduce the local ecological impacts typically associated with net-pen
salmon farming, the increase in material and energy demands associated with their use may result in
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 47 of 69
significantly increased contributions to several environmental impacts of global concern, including global
warming, non-renewable resource depletion, and acidification
2.10 Aquaculture - Ecotoxicity
Chemical discharge from aquaculture farms including remains of chemotheropeutants can be a threat to biodiversity. The impacts measured as marine, terrestrial or human ecotoxicity has been included in a few studies (Table 12) while others have chosen to leave this out because methodologies are still under development and there may be uncertainty in the assessment.
Table 12 Ecotoxicity assessment in different rearing systems of salmonids
References / Functional unit
Type of system
Terr
est
eria
l
eco
toxi
city
Mar
ine
eco
toxi
city
Hu
man
toxc
ity
kg 1,4-DB eq
Ayer & Tyedmers (2009) Atlantic salmon Atlantic char
Conventional marine net-pen system 822,000 639
Marine floating bag system 96,000 624
Land-based saltwater flow-through system 235,000 939
Land-based freshwater recirculating system 91,200 3340
Boissy, et al. (2011) 1 tonne live weight salmon
Atlantic salmon / standard diet 6.3
Atlantic salmon / low marine-fishery capture diet 8.7
Rainbow trout / standard diet 16.7
Rainbow trout / low marine-fishery capture diet 19.4
Pelletier & Tyedmers (2007) Canada / Salmon 1 tonne feed
(C) Conventional feed Gross nutritional energy content
60,700
(OA) Organic crop ingredients /conventional fish and poultry ingredient Gross nutritional energy content
61,100
(OBP) Organic crop ingredients/fisheries by-products ingredients Gross nutritional energy content
63,300
(ORF) Organic crop ingredients/reduced fisheries ingredients Gross nutritional energy content
47,600
2.11 Aquaculture - Biodiversity threats
There are many impact classes, which life cycle assessment does not usually cover, like biodiversity, effects
on fish stocks and animal welfare.
Sea lice
Sea lice are a threat to wild populations so compulsory delousing should be implemented in all jurisdictions
(following Norway). A robust framework of basin-scale cooperation between farmers and wild fish interests
regarding synchronous stocking and treatment has been encouraged to minimize medicine use. Sea lice, of
which there are several species, are natural occurring seawater parasites, which infect the salmon skin and
if not controlled they can cause lesions, secondary infection and mortality. Salmon lice can be a threat to
wild salmon stocks, particularly the seaward-migrating wild smolts (Skilbrei and Wennevik, 2006). Sea lice
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 48 of 69
are controlled through good manufacturing practices and the use of pharmaceutical products, cleaner fish
(different wrasse species, eating parasites off the salmon skin), and hydrogen peroxide baths (well boats or
enclosed cages). Sea lice may also be controlled by low temperature, where tests with pumping deep
bottom water into farms have proven successful. In the event of occurrence of salmon lice, natural
methods are preferred and the use of cleaner fish is recommended since they do an important job by
grazing surviving female lice after medical treatment, or keep control over lice during the time the fish are
stored in waiting/harvesting pens. During bath treatment against salmon lice preventive measures shall be
implemented to minimize environmental impacts.
Figure 14 Vaccination and use of Antibiotics in Norway (Source: Marine Harvest Handbook)
Chemical discharges - Antifoulants
Chemical discharges like copper emissions from painting of pens/boats are of concern in aquaculture.
Loucks et al. (2012) present a study of open-net salmon farms in Canada in which is shown that there is a
close relation between this production system type and high levels of copper in the sediments and in the
sea surface, surpassing local guidelines for marine life protection. However, copper is usually not allowed
for pens and it is not allowed in organic production
Use of medication In Norway, use of medicines was a considerable problem in the 1980s. Today, it is greatly reduced due to
more effective vaccines, along with better localities and improved hygiene (Figure 14). Still, some
consumers assume that the Norwegian farmed salmon is heavily medicated, which demonstrates the long-
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 49 of 69
term consequences of negative environmental information and highlights the demand for objective and
truthful information, including information about improvements (Ellingsen et al., 2009).
According to Debio standard in Norway vaccination is permitted if it is established that there is or have been a disease in the area and that it cannot be controlled using prophylactic production methods. Organic certification is not affected by vaccination that is recommended by the fish health service or the veterinarian authorities.
Escapees
Escapees are considered especially important because of their potential to spread diseases to the wild and
to threaten their biological diversity. The average amount of escaped salmon varies from country to
country. Ford et al. (2012) presented figures on salmon escapes per country per year showing that the UK
(Scotland) have more than double the average of the other countries considered (Norway, Canada and
Chile) (Table 13).
Table 13 Average number of escaped salmon per tonne of Atlantic Salmon produced (From Ford et al, 2012)
Norway (1999-2007)
UK-Scotland (2002-2007)
Canada (1999-2007)
Chile (2003-2005)
Average 0.92 2.12 0.59 0.36
Improvements in technologies for preventing escapes have been recommended. In Norway for example the
escapes of farmed fish must be reported on a statutory basis, particularly in Atlantic areas and emphasis is
on the need for environmental data collected at farms to be placed in the public domain to increase
confidence in the regulatory process
2.12 Transport - Use of fossil fuels - GWP
Processing (fresh and frozen) and transport - Energy use and GHG emission Processing, packaging, transport, sale, consumption and waste management have not been commonly
included in life cycle stages in seafood LCAs. This is particularly the case in aquaculture studies, while
fisheries studies have often followed products through the transport stage (Ziegler et al., 2012). Transport
and processing were not significant contribution factors to environmental impacts in a study on LCA of
salmon supply chain including the transport of finished products from Norway to Paris (Ellingsen et al.,
2009). However, transport and refrigeration during transport are of key importance when comparing
different food supply chains and the impacts of local and global production. There are opportunities to
minimize the environmental impact of transport by supply chain management and considering energy
consumption and use both in primary production within the fisheries including fishing, meal/oil
manufacture and transportation of meals/oils to fish farms, as well as transport of finished products to the
market.
LCAs that have focused on the transportation phase of cold fish supply chains all verify that sea freight is by
far more environmentally friendly transportation mode than air freight (Andersen, 2002; Freidberg, 2009;
Tyedmers et al., 2010; Ingólfsdóttir et al., 2010; Winther et al.,2009; Ziegler et al., 2012). It is thus very
important to consider how food is produced and transported and not only where it is produced in terms of
environmental performance of products. Processing before export can be favourable because of the
greater potential to use by-products and the reduced need for transportation. When analysing by LCA the
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 50 of 69
post landing activities of cold fish supply chains and comparing two different transportation modes from
Iceland to Europe, the air freight had 18 times larger carbon footprint than the sea freighted supply chain
(Ingólfsdóttir et al., 2010). The carbon footprint of 1 kg of air freighted fresh demersal fish fillet was 4.7 kg
CO2‐equivalents and in comparision 0.3 kg CO2‐equivalents for the sea freighted fish (excluding the fisheries
stage).
It has been emphasised that the product form (fresh or frozen) matters and freezing makes slower
transportation possible because of much longer shelf life of frozen products. When considering consumer
choices of seafood with low environmental impact, buying frozen seafood products instead of fresh can be
thus be very relevant as reported. Several studies have demonstrated this, for example a LCA study on a
salmon supply chain where salmon was caught in Alaska and transported to Seattle (Freidberg, 2009). The
shift of the Seattle based company from air freighted fresh salmon to frozen fish transported by sea
revealed that there is a dramatic difference in the environmental impacts between the two modes. The
Seattle based company therefore significantly reduced the environmental impact of their product, as well
as saved money, by shifting from air to sea based transportation and from fresh to frozen (Freidberg, 2009).
Figure 15 GWP and energy use for production steps of salmon products and transport to different markets (Functional unit:1 kg edible product at wholesaler) (Adapted from Winther et al. 2009)
Similarly, the importance of the transport mode was demonstrated in studies where carbon footprint of
more than 20 Norwegian seafood products were quantified, including fresh and frozen, processed and
unprocessed cod, haddock, saithe, herring, mackerel, farmed salmon, and farmed blue mussels (Winther et
al.,2009; Ziegler et al., 2012). The most efficient seafood product was herring shipped frozen in bulk to
Moscow at 0.7 kilograms CO2 equivalents per kilogram (kg CO2-eq/kg) edible product. At the other end was
fresh gutted salmon air freighted to Tokyo at about 14 kg CO2-eq/kg edible product (Figure 15). This wide
range points to major differences between seafood products and room for considerable improvement
within supply chains and in product choices (Ziegler et al., 2012).
2,72
2,72
2,72
2,72
2,72
1,9
1,9
10,83
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Salmon, fresh gutted to Paris
Salmon, fresh gutted to Oslo
Salmon, fresh gutted to Moscow
Salmon, fresh gutted to Tokyo (by air)
Salmon, frozen gutted to Shanghai (by boat)
Salmon, fresh fillet to Paris
Salmon, frozen fillet to Paris
GWP kg CO2 eq Feed production
Aquaculture (excl. feedproduction)
Processing
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 51 of 69
Refrigerated transport – impact of chilling and packages
Product-specific studies may not necessarily be needed to estimate the impact of the emissions intensity of
packaging materials or transportation modes, since this can be assumed to be similar across most seafood
products (Parker, 2012). The finished smoked salmon products are commonly vacuum packed (or modified
atmosphere) in plastic packaging material and cardboard boxes while fresh fish is transported in EPS
(Expanded Polystyrene) boxes sometimes with added cooling mats or ice. The environmental impact of EPS
packaging has been shown to be considerable, where the main contribution is energy use in the production
of EPS granulates (Ingólfsdóttir et al., 2010).
Transportation by truck and packaging material were by far the two biggest contributors to impact
potentials in seafood supply chain systems where comparison was made between chilled and superchilled
fillets (Claussen et al., 2011). The current cold chain distribution system in Europe is complex and involves
numerous stakeholders, who sometimes have limited understanding of the importance of chilling and the
significance of energy transfer. Fresh fish products are often chilled in refrigerated seawater and ice (liquid
ice) and after packaging in boxes extra ice is added. As a result large quantity of ice is transported with the
fish, with higher greenhouse gas emissions from the transport operation as a consequence. The results of
the study of Claussen et al. (2011) showed that the reduced need for packaging and transport of ice in a
system applying superchilling, would compensate for the environmental impacts of a significant higher
energy demand in superchilled production. Chilled fillets had approximately 30% higher impact potentials
than the superchilled fillets for all environmental impact categories. This was explained as a direct
reflection of the ice content in the boxes with chilled fillets, and was considered the most important
parameter in this assessment. The sensitive analysis showed that the electricity input for the superchilled
system had to increase considerably in order for the traditional chilled system to be the most
environmentally friendly option. Total impact potentials were not affected by the electricity mix category
(Norwegian or European) based on the sensitivity study. Thus, the additional energy required to achieve
superchilled properties is minimal when considering the total energy used in transportation (Claussen et al.,
2011).
2.13 Refrigerants and Ozone depletion
The ozone depletion is caused by free chlorine radicals that act as catalysts and remove ozone from the
atmosphere and convert the ozone (O3) to oxygen (O2). Excess chlorine is present in the stratosphere as a
result of releases of manmade chlorine containing chemicals. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and
hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) are an example of these chemicals which have become widespread
because of their chemical properties, especially as refrigerants, in air conditioning and refrigerating
systems. According to Ziegler et al. (2012) an improvement is the replacement of the HCFC R22 with
environmentally harmless refrigerants like ammonia (Svanes et al., 2011b; Ziegler et al., 2010).
2.14 Local ecological impact categories
Ford et al., (2012) proposed local ecological impact categories and indicators for Life Cycle Assessment of
aquaculture. “Relatively well understood impacts, like those from nutrient releases on the benthos or
freshwater, or the impacts of sea lice concentrations and escaped fish in the case of salmon farming, could
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 52 of 69
be used in LCAs of aquaculture. These impacts are of interest to regulators and the public, and allow for the
exploration of impacts at different spatial scales” (Ford et al., 2012).
Table 14 Proposed Local Ecological Impact Categories and Indicators for Life Cycle Assessment of Aquaculture (Ford et al., 2012)
Impact - Indicator Comment on suitability of indicator
Nutrient release
area altered by farm waste, well-developed indicators, should be possible to estimate with information frequently collected at aquaculture sites
changes in nutrient concentration in the water column,
These indicators may be of interest depending on the system in question, data availability, and types of comparisons investigators wish to undertake percent of carrying capacity reached,
percent of total anthropogenic nutrient release,
release of wastes into freshwater
Biodiversity
number of escaped salmon, well-studied impacts of salmon farming
number of reported disease outbreaks, indicator could be applied to any aquaculture system.
parasite abundance on farms, well-studied impacts of salmon farming
per cent reduction in wild salmon survival
the overall impact on the survival of wild populations of the species or closely related species being farmed, is of particular interest, but the data on wild conspecifics that would be needed to estimate it are rarely available.
toxic chemical releases poorly understood
disease outbreaks on farms poorly understood
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 53 of 69
Part 3: List of key impact categories and their classification to global or regional impacts
Through parts 1 - 2 of this report the environmental challenges that may arise in aquaculture supply chains
have been reviewed and process steps explained for salmon aquaculture and processing of smoked salmon
products. The main impact categories that have been addressed in LCA studies on salmon aquaculture are
listed in Table 15 and their main influence on human health, natural environment or natural resources.
Table 15 The key environmental impacts of the salmon aquaculture supply chain
Impact category Influence
Climate change - GWP Human health
Natural environment
Ozone depletion – ODP
Terrestrial acidification – AP
Eutrophication – EP
Biodiversity loss
Ecotoxicity (terrestrial / aquatic )
Energy use Natural resources
Bioresource use (biotic and abiotic)
Land use (including seafloor – sea surface)
Water use
Feed production is most often the major contributor to environmental impacts in conventional
aquaculture systems where energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, acidifying emissions and biotic
resource use in the case of fisheries derived ingredients in feed, are the main impact categories
(Aubin et al., 2006; Ellingsen and Aanondsen, 2006; Tyedmers and Pelletier,2007; Winther et al.,
2009: Ziegler et al., 2012).
Comparison of the contribution of feed ingredients and different processes to CO2 footprint
showed large contribution of the soya protein concentrate, which was similar to the contribution of
the combined effect of production of marine meal and oil. If LUC coupled to soy bean production
would be included the contribution from soy would be even higher (Hognes et al., 2011; Ytrestøyl
et al., 2011).
Fuel use in fishing, and feed production in aquaculture are key contributors to climate change
(greenhouse gas emission) (Ziegler et al., 2012)
The fish farm stage of production is a significant contributor to the eutrophication, which has been
shown to be highly dependent on the type of rearing systems, the type of feed and the feed
conversion ratio (Ayer and Tyedmers, 2009; Aubin et al., 2009; Boissy et al., 2011; Pelletier et al.,
2009).
The indicators and methods applied for chemical discharges (i.e. medicine, vaccines and
antifoulants)and assessment of ecotoxicity are not well developed and their use for environmental
impact assessment of aquaculture have been questioned (Ford et al., 2012).
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 54 of 69
Land use for crop production for feed and sea primary production- required to sustain the fish used
for salmon feed and the benthic area influenced by fishing gear have been calculated to assess the
impacts of feed for salmon (Ytrestöyl, 2011).
Water use is of importance especially in water scarce areas and land based systems and water use
for irrigation in production of crop for feed.
The FIFO ratio (fish-in-fish-out-ratio), forage fish dependency ratio is widely applied as an
assessment method for biotic resource use in the aquaculture industry.
Feed efficiency appears to have a dominant influence on the level of environmental impacts. The
difference in the environmental load has been shown to be directly related to relative ability of fish
to convert their diet into biomass and lower impacts have been reported for systems with low FCR
(feed conversion ratio). FCRs for many aquaculture species dependent on industrially manufactured
compound aquafeeds are projected to decline as a result of improved feed efficiency and
management (FAO, 2012).
Climate change impact caused by fuel use for global transport involved in sourcing of feed
ingredients, as well as transport and distribution of products to market can have a large impact
depending on the distance and mode of tranport (Ellingsen et al., 2009; Pelletier et al., 2009;
Winther et al., 2009).
The environmental impact of EPS packaging has been shown to be considerable, where the main
contribution is energy use in the production of EPS granulates (Ingólfsdóttir et al., 2010).
Aquaculture challenges that cause threats to biodiversity e.g. pathogens, escapees, and sea lice are
currently monitored in many countries and data may be available.
Key environmental impacts of the salmon aquaculture supply chain - Global and regional impacts
The overview gained in this report will be used as background to justify the selection of impact categories
for aquaculture products for the SENSE tool. The selected impacts are similar to agricultural products
identified for the milk and dairy, and orange juice supply chain in the SENSE project. The emission sources
and output emissions are further explained in each step of the aquaculture supply chain in Table 16 and
classified as global or local impacts.
Many of the aquaculture-related environmental impacts are not incorporated in appropriate impact
categories in LCA. Therefore, it can be concluded in agreement with Samuel-Fitwi et al. (2012), that LCA will
not to be sufficient to address all of the key global challenges generated from aquaculture i.e. nutrient and
organic matter releases, impacts associated with provision of feed, introduction of diseases, introduction of
exotic species, escapes, changed usage of coastal areas, and climate change. Thus, application of
assessment tools like the SENSE tool based on LCA needs to be specifically adapted and the foreseen
limitation clearly addressed, since existing LCA methodology will not adequately cover the assessment of
environmental impacts of aquaculture.
Further evaluation of the applicability of indicators and selection of methodology to be applied to assess
the main environmental impacts in the SENSE tool will be carried out to ensure that they will be reliable to
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 55 of 69
assess the different food products (salmon, orange juice and dairy/beef) and their supply chains.
Methodology assessment and evaluation of the suitability of the indicators will be explored in Task 1.2,
Task 1.3 and the availability and accessibility of data in questionnaires in WP 2.
Table 16 Summary of emissions in each production stage of salmon and key impact categories and their classification into global or regional impacts
Impact category
Production stage Emission source Emissions Global /Regional
Climate change
Crops - cultivation Fertiliser production GHGs (e.g. CO2) G
Crops - cultivation Application of mineral and organic fertilizer
N2O
Fisheries for feed Energy use /diesel, refrigerant leakage
GHGs (e.g. CO2, CH4) CFC /HCFs
Feed production Energy use GHGs (e.g. CO2, CH4)
Aquaculture Energy use
Processing Energy use, refrigerant leakage
GHGs (e.g. CO2, CH4) CFC /HCFs (kg CO2-eq) Transport to consumers Energy use, refrigerant
leakage
Waste Organic waste landfilled / Plastic package incinerated
GHGs (e.g. CO2, CH4)
Acidification
Crops - cultivation Fertilizer application, fuel consumption
(SO2, NH3, NOx)
R
Transport to consumers Energy consumption SO2, NOxs (kg SO2-eq)
Eutrophication
Crop cultivation Fertilizer application PO4, NO3, NH3, N2O R Aquaculture (juveniles,
smolt, farming) Excess feed, Nutrient enrichment
PO4, NO3, (kg PO4-eq)
Processing Waste water
Biotic resource depletion
Fisheries / Feed Forage fish for feed FIFO
R /G
Abiotic resource depletion
Processing to consumers
Other resource use (kg Sb-eq) R /G
Ecotoxity
Crop cultivation Pesticides Ecotoxic substances (kg DCB-eq)
R
Aquaculture Antifoulants, cleaners, medicine use
Land Use
Crops - Primary production /veg. feed)
Crop production (m2) R
Juveniles, smolt production
Land based hatcheries (m2)
Surface of water
Salmon farming Net pens (m2) R
Ozone Fisheries / Feed prod Refrigerants Ozone depleting G
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 56 of 69
depletion
Chilling, Processing, transport to consumers
Refrigerants substances (e.g. CFCs, HCFCs) (kg R11-eq)
Biodiversity
Salmon farming Escapee, salmon lice, no species G /R
Fisheries / Feed prod Burden on stock
Crop cultivation Deforestation /land use
Water use
Crop cultivation Irrigation /water use R Juvenile and smolt water use in hatheries or
land based production
Processing Cleaning
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 57 of 69
Part 4: Regional differences in aquaculture production affecting environmental impacts
As detailed in Part 1, all salmon aquaculture production and processing areas fall into the North Atlantic
region where main producers are Norway, UK, Faroe Islands and Iceland. Although the emphasis in the
SENSE project is salmon other species and different aquaculture systems are also considered for a more
complete overview and understanding of environmental impacts of aquaculture. Regionalisation of
characterization factors in LCA for aquaculture may contribute to more accurate studies and provide better
understanding of environmental impacts of the aquaculture supply chain in specific regions.
The methods for the impact assessment of land use, including impacts on biodiversity, and resource
aspects such as freshwater resources, need to be assessed in relation to regions and characteristics of
respective supply chains and this is not done in LCA’s today. For example fish farming can cause locally
important environmental impacts and water use may have tremendous environmental impact in water-
scarce countries. Therefore, relevant impact assessment methods are needed to take into account impact
categories and regionalization that is not adequately covered by the recommended standard methods. The
method choice has to be made taking into account different strengths and weakness of the methodologies
as well as research objectives.
Biogeographical regions and seas in Europe Regarding geographic differences and environmental sensitivity related to aqua farming, information on
biogeographical regions in Europe are available in a report on Europe's biodiversity - biogeographical
regions and seas (European Environment Agency (2002). It is stated that eutrophication has been a major
problem in many European coastal areas, but to a lesser degree in the Atlantic region.
Figure 16 North-east Atlantic Ocean physiography (depth distribution and main currents) (Source EEA) (Note that the map does not cover all of NorthEast Atlantic Ocean, as specified by FAO zone 27, and the Mediterranean area is only partly shown)
In the North-east Atlantic Ocean (see Figure 16) the concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus have been
anthropogenically enhanced for some estuaries within the Celtic Sea and from restricted areas of estuaries
and coastal lagoons in the Bay of Biscay, and the Iberian Coast. Available data on nutrients, dissolved
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 58 of 69
oxygen and abundance of benthic fauna gives some evidence of eutrophication of the coastal zones in this
region. In the greater North Sea eutrophication resulting from nutrient enrichment; primarily nitrogen and
phosphorus affects mainly the coastal zone, particularly estuaries and fjords. Nutrient-related problems are
widespread in the Wadden Sea, the German Bight, the Kattegat and the eastern Skagerrak.
The occurrence of low oxygen levels in seawater is highly dependent on hydrographical conditions, and is a
problem only in some areas of the North Sea. Fishing, bottom trawling and fish farming put pressure on the
ecological systems in the Baltic Sea. Eutrophication is one of the major environmental problems in the
Baltic. There are indications that the frequency and the spatial coverage of harmful blooms in the Baltic Sea
have increased. The Mediterranean region is one of the most vulnerable to suffer from water scarcity,
aquatic eutrophication, soil and biodiversity loss etc. mainly due to high urbanization areas and the climate
of this particular territory.
Regionalisation based on production technologies and geographical characteristics
Within Europe, ponds and lakes in Eastern Europe have traditionally been exploited for carp production
while various species have been farmed in the Atlantic coastal areas of mid and south Europe. Rainbow
trout is produced in Denmark and other Nordic countries as well as in the Baltic area. In the Mediterranean
area, aquaculture (oysters, mussels and fish farms) is more recent and has been expanding rapidly in the
last few years focusing on species like sea bass and gilthead sea bream.
The environmental impact of aquaculture farming production with regard to geographic location and
regional differences were stated by Braaten (1992) as follows: "Eutrophication from fish farming is
estimated to be a small problem on the west coast of Norway, Iceland, and the Faroe Islands, although local
problems may arise in narrow fjords and enclosed areas. Overloading of nutrients is considered to be a
major problem in the Baltic, the Belts and parts of Skagerrak and Kattegat."
The impact of number of pens in small fjords and determination of loading capacity as well as different
production technologies, feeding technologies, water and energy use and waste management, has been
the topic of various research initiatives, which have formed the basis for environmental assessment
programs, monitoring and development of guidelines and regulations for the aquaculture industry.
European aquaculture can be divided into the following 5 segments (Table 17), which are based on the combination of driving technical forces and controlling environmental conditions, as suggested by the CONSENSUS platform for sustainable aquaculture in Europe (Váradi et al., 2010).
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 59 of 69
Table 17 Main aquaculture species, production systems and technologies in Europe (Adapted from Váradi et al., 2010)
Production systems
Species Region / Characteristics
Semi-static water systems
Natural-food-based pond culture of carps High-market-value indigenous fish species, such as European catfish, pike and zander, eels, as well as tench and other small cyprinids
Central and Eastern European countries Ponds, lakes, basins
Freshwater species in extensive systems Commercially valuable species like striped mullet, golden-grey mullet, leaping mullet, European eel, European seabass, gilthead seabream.
Mediterranean countries Extensive lagoon farming - Italy has the largest areas of brackishwater ("valli"), Contributing to wetland resource management and water use in coastal lagoon systems (valliculture)
Flow-through systems
Exclusively land-based fish farming facilities Some freshwater systems utilize industrial cooling water or geothermal water. Freshwater systems allow the rearing of fresh water species (especially eel, catfish, zander, perch, tilapia) with low environmental impact
Seawater and brackishwater farms are generally located at the seaside - farms use the water of a river pumped through the production unit - other water sources i.e springwater, drilled and pumped groundwater, cooling waters or coastal waters
Recirculation aquaculture systems (RAS)
Freshwater and marine hatcheries for land-based culture of freshwater species (catfish, eel) and the culture of marine species such as turbot or sole The current European RAS industry can be divided into two groups from a technical point of view: hatcheries and ongrowing systems
Land-based water-saving systems, with a strict control over water quality, low environmental impacts and high biosecurity levels. On the other hand, they have high capital and operational costs and present difficulties in treating diseases
Coastal shellfish systems
Produce mussels in bottom, stake or suspended culture or oysters in suspended culture and coastal lagoons, as well as clams
Farming methods for the various species rely completely on naturally occurring plankton as a food source
Coastal and offshore finfish systems
Used for salmonids (salmon and trout) and marine species, including seabass, seabream, cod and tuna.
Coastal and off-shore cages have a broad range of shapes and sizes, and are made of different materials (steel, plastic or rubber).
Copyright
“Copyright and Reprint Permissions. You may freely reproduce all or part of this paper for non-commercial purposes, provided that the following conditions are fulfilled: (i) to cite the authors, as the copyright owners (ii) to cite the SENSE Project and mention that the European Commission co-finances it, by means of including this statement “SENSE KBBE Project No 288974. Funded by EC” and (iii) not to alter the information.”
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 60 of 69
References
Andersen, O. (2002) Transport of Fish from Norway: Energy Analysis Using Industrial Ecology as the
framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 10 (6), 581-588.
Aubin, J., Papatryphon, E., Van der Werf, H. M. G., & Chatzifotis, S. (2009). Assessment of the
environmental impact of carnivorous finfish production systems using life cycle assessment. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 17, 354-361.
Ayer N.W., Tyedmers, P.H., Pelletier, N.L., Sonesson, U., & Scholz, A. (2007) Co-Product Allocation in Life
Cycle Assessments of Seafood Production Systems: Review of Problems and Strategies. International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 12 (7) 480–487.
Ayer, N. (2007). The biophysical costs of technology: Assessing the environmental impacts of alternative
salmonid culture systems in Canada using life cycle assessment. Masters thesis, Dalhousie University.
Ayer, N., & Tyedmers, P. (2009). Assessing alternative aquaculture technologies: Life cycle assessment of
salmonid culture systems in Canada. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17, 362-373.
Boissy, J., Aubin, J., Drissi, A., Van der Werf, H. M. G., Bell, G., & Kaushik, S. (2011). Environmental impacts
of plant-based salmonid diets at feed and farm scales. Aquaculture, 321, 61-70.
Bostock J., McAndrew B., Richards R., Jauncey K., Telfer T., Lorenzen K., LittleD., Ross L., Handisyde N.,
Gatward I., & Corner R. (2010). Aquaculture: global status and trends. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B vol. 365 no.
1554 pp 2897-2912
Braaten (1992) Impact of pollution from aquaculture in six Nordic countries: release of nutrients, effects,
and waste water treatment. In: De Pauw, N.; Joyce, J. (Ed.) Aquaculture and the Environment: reviews of
the International Conference Aquaculture Europe '91, Dublin, Ireland, June 10-12, 1991. EAS Special
Publication, 16. European Aquaculture Society: Gent, Belgium
Buchspiess B., Tölle S. J. & Jungbluth N. (2011) Life Cycle Assessment of High-Sea Fish and Salmon
Aquaculture. Practical training report. ESU-services Ltd., Uster, CH. Retrieved from: http://www.esu-
services.ch/fileadmin/download/buchspies-2011-LCA-fish.pdf
Claussen, I.C., Indergård, E. & Grindec, M. 2011. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of production and
transport of chilled versus superchilled haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) fillets from Norway to
France. Procedia Food Science 1, 1091 – 1098
Cohen Commission (2011) Policy and Practice Report: Aquaculture Regulation in British Columbia July 28,
2011 Retrieved from: http://www.cohencommission.ca/en/pdf/PPR/PPR20-
AquacultureRegulationInBC.pdf.
Colt, J., Summerfelt, S., Pfeiffer, T., Fivelstad, S & Rust, M., (2008). Energy and resource consumption of
land-based Atlantic salmon smolt hatcheries in the Pacific Northwest (USA). Aquaculture, 280: 94-108
EcoPlan International (2008) Global Assessment of Closed System Aquaculture,2008, Report prepared for
the David Suzuki Foundation and the Georgia Strait Alliance, on behalf of The Coastal Alliance for
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 61 of 69
Aquaculture Reform, EcoPlan International Retrieved from:
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/publications/downloads/2008/Closed-System-Aquac-Global-Review.pdf
Ellingsen, H. & Aanondsen, S. A. (2006). Environmental impacts of wild caught cod and farmed salmon - A
comparison with chicken. Int J LCA, 1(1), 60-65.
Ellingsen, H., Olaussen, J.O. & Utne, I.B. (2009) Environmental analysis of the Norwegian fishery and
aquaculture industry—A preliminary study focusing on farmed salmon. Marine Policy 33 479–488
Emanuelsson, A., Skontorop Hognes, E., Ziegler, F., Sund, V., Winther, U., & Ellingsen, H. (2010). Life cycle
approach to Norwegian seafood logistics - New ways to model food transports. In Proceedings of the 7th
International Conference on LCA in the Agri-Food Sector, Bari, Italy, 22-24 September 2010.
European Commission (2010). Preparatory study on food waste across EU 27 (Final report). Paris, France:
European Comm ission in association with AEA Energy, Umwelt Bundesamt and Environment and BIO
Intelligence Service.
European Environment Agency (2002) Europe's biodiversity - biogeographical regions and seas: The North-
east Atlantic Ocean -- huge, deep and heavily exploited; The North Sea -- bottom trawling and oil/gas
exploitation; The Mediterranean biogeographical region– long influence from cultivation, high pressure
from tourists, species rich, warm and drying. EEA Report No 1/2002 European Environment Agency.
Retrieved from: http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/report_2002_0524_154909
Eyjolfsdottir, H.R., Jonsdottir, H., Yngvadottir, E. & Skuladottir, B. (2003). Environmental effects of fish on
the consumers dish. Life cycle assessment of Icelandic frozen cod products. Icelandic Fisheries Laboratories
(2003) Rf Report 06–03, Reykjavik.
FAO (2001) Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries. Aquaculture development, 1. Good Aquaculture
feed manufacturing practices. Retrieved from: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y1453e/y1453e00.pdf
FAO and IFIF (2010). Good practices for the feed industry – Implementing the Codex Alimentarius Code of
Practice on Good Animal Feeding. FAO Animal Production and Health Manual No. 9. Rome. Retrieved from:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1379e/i1379e.pdf
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations)(2010)The State of World Fisheries and
Aquaculture 2010 FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. Retrieved from :
http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1820e/i1820e.pdf
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (2012). State of World Fisheries and
Aquaculture2012. Rome, Italy: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department Retrieved from:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2727e/i2727e03.pdf
Fet, A.M., Schau, E.M. & Haskins, C. (2010) A framework for environmental analyses of fish food
production systems based on systems engineering principles. Systems Engineering, 13 (2) 109–118
Fisheries and Oceans, Canada (2011) Sea Lice Monitoring Program for Marine Salmon Aquaculture Sites in
New Brunswick. Retrieved from: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/consultations/2012/RASRR-SL-
eng.htm
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 62 of 69
Ford, J.S., Pelletier, N.L., Ziegler, F., Scholz, A.J., Tyedmers P.H., Sonesson, U., Kruse, S.A., & Silverman, H.
(2012). Proposed Local Ecological Impact Categories and Indicators for Life Cycle Assessment of
Aquaculture. Journal of Industrial Ecology 16 (2) 254–265.
Foster, C., Green, K., Bleda, M., Dewick, P., Evans, B., Flynn, A. & Mylan, J. (2006). Environmental Impacts of
Food Production and Consumption: A report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs,
Manchester Business School. Defra, London
Frid, C. L. J. & Paramor O. A. L. (2012) “Feeding the World: What Role for Fisheries?” ICES Journal of Marine
Science 69 (2) 145–150.
Fulton, S. (2010). Fish and fuel: Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with Icelandic cod, Alaskan
pollock, and Alaskan pink salmon fillets delivered to the United Kingdom. Masters thesis, Dalhousie
University.
Frederiksen, M. T., Randrup, M., Frosch, S., Storøy, J., Forås, E., Senneset, G., Zachrau, R, Ólavsstovu, D.,
Margeirsson, S., Arnason, S. V., Östergren, K., Janson, C. G., Olsen, P. & Karlsen, K. M. (2007). Integrating
Food Safety and Traceability (IFSAT) Nordic Innovation, Oslo, Norway,136pp.
Freidberg, S. (2009). Hotspots in a Cold Chain: A Life Cycle Assessment of Loki Fish, Retrieved from:
http://lokifish.com/freidbergpaper.pdf.
Georgakopoulos, G. & Thomson, I. (2005). Organic salmon farming: risk perceptions, decision heuristics,
and the absence of environmental accounting. Accounting Forum, 29(1), 49-75.
Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., van Otterdijk, R., Meybeck, A. (2011). Global Food Losses and
Food Waste. Study conducted for the International Congress SAVE FOOD! at Interpack2011,Düsseldorf,
Germany. FAO, Rome, 2011, 38pp. Retrieved from:
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/suistainability/pdf/Global_Food_Losses_and_Food_Waste.pdf
Grönroos, J., Seppälä, J., Silvenius, F., & Mäkinen, T (2006). Life cycle assessment of Finnish cultivated
rainbow trout. Boreal Enviroment Research 11:401-44, Helsinki
Hall, S.J., A. Delaporte, M. J. Phillips, M. Beveridge & M. O’Keefe. (2011). Blue Frontiers: Managing the
Environmental Costs of Aquaculture. The WorldFish Center, Penang, Malaysia Retrieved from:
http://www.worldfishcenter.org/global_aquaculture/
Hargrave, B.T. (ed) (2005). Environmental effects of marine finfish aquaculture. The handbook of
environmental chemistry. Water pollution, Part M., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Vol 5, 468 p.
Henriksson, P., Guinée, J., Kleijn, R., & Snoo, G. 2012. Life cycle assessment of aquaculture systems- a
review of methodologies. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 17, 304-313.
Hognes, E.S, Ziegler, F., & Sund, S. 2011. Carbon footprint and area use of farmed Norwegian salmon.
SINTEF Fisheries and Aquaculture. Appendix in Ytrestöyl et al 2011, NOFIMA report 53/2011
Hornborg S., Nilsson P., Valentinsson D., & Ziegler F. (2012). Integrated environmental assessment of
fisheries management: Swedish Nephrops trawl fisheries evaluated using a lifecycle approach. Marine
Policy 36, 1193–1201
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 63 of 69
Huntington, T.C. & Hasan, M.R. (2009) Fish as feed inputs for aquaculture – practices, sustainability and
implications: a global synthesis. In M.R. Hasan & M. Halwart (eds). Fish as feed inputs for aquaculture:
practices, sustainability and implications. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 518. Rome,
FAO. pp. 1–61
ICES (2012) ICES WGEIM REPORT 2012. Retrieved from:
http://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00090/20087/17727.pdf
Ingólfsdóttir, G.M. Ólafsdóttir, G., Yngvadóttir, E., Hafliðason, T., & Bogason, S. (2010) Application of
Environmental Indicators for Seafood. Final report for The Icelandic Research Council, University of Iceland,
Laboratory of Applied Supply Chain Systems, ASCS-UoI Report, Sept 2010, 60p
ISO (International Organization for Standardization). 2006a. ISO 14040:2006(E). Environmental
management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and framework. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO.
ISO (International Organization for Standardization). 2006b. ISO 14044:2006(E). Environmental
management – Life cycle assessment – Requirements and guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO.
ISO (International Organization for Standardization). ISO/DIS 14067.2 Carbon footprint of products --
Requirements and guidelines for quantification and communication. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO.
ISO (International Organization for Standardization).2007. ISO 14065:2007 Greenhouse gases -
Requirements for greenhouse gas validation and verification bodies for use in accreditation or other forms
of recognition. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO.
ILCD Handbook. International Reference Life Cycle Data System, General guide for Life Cycle Assessment –
Detailed guidance; JRC, European Commission, European Union 2010
Jerbi, M. A., Aubin, J., Garnaoui, K., Achour, L., & Kacem, A. (2011). Life cycle assessment (LCA) of two
rearing techniques of sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax). Aquacultural Engineering. DOI:
10.1016/j.aquaeng.2011.10.001
Jyri Seppälä, Maximilian Posch, Matti Johansson & Jean-Paul Hettelingh (2006) Country-Dependent
Characterisation Factors for Acidification and Terrestrial Eutrophication Based on Accumulated Exceedance
as an Impact Category Indicator. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 11 (6) 403 – 416 DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2005.06.215
Karlsen, K.M., Donnelly, K.A.-M., Olsen, P., Forås, E., Senneset, G., Frederiksen, M., Alberdi, B., & Zárate,
A.G. (2007) Process mapping; Analysis of traceability of herring, tuna and salmon. Report
22/2007.Retrieved from http://www.nofima.no/filearchive/Rapport%2022-2007.pdf.
Loucks, R. H., Smith, R. E., Fisher, C. V., Fisher E. B. (2012).Copper in the sediment and sea surface
microlayer near a fallowed, open-net fish farm. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 64, 9, 1970–1973. Retrieved
from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.05.025
Magnussen, O., Haugland., Torstveithemmingsen, Johansen, S., & Nordtvedt, T. (2008). Advances in
superchilling of food – Process salmon consumers. Aquaculture Economics and Management 15 (1): 18-45.
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 64 of 69
Nash, C.E. (editor). 2001. The net-pen salmon farming Industry in the Pacific Northwest. U.S. Dept.
Commer.,NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-49, 125 p.
Nasopoulou & Zabetakis I., 2012. “Benefits of Fish Oil Replacement by Plant Originated Oils in Compounded
Fish Feeds. A Review.” LWT - characteristics and product quality. Trends in Food Science & Technology,
19(8), 418‐424. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2008.04.005 (Accessed 16 March, 2013).
Marine Harvest (2012) Salmon Farming Industry Handbook 2012 Marine Harvest. Retrieved from:
http://www.marineharvest.com/PageFiles/1296/2012%20Salmon%20Handbook%2018.juli_h%C3%B8y%20
tl.pdf
Mente, E., Karalazos, V., Karapanagiotidis, I., & Pita, C. (2011). Nutrition in organic aquaculture: an inquiry
and a discourse. Aquaculture nutrition. 17: 798-817.
Murray, A., Pelletier, N., & Tyedmers, P. 2011. Preferences for health and environmental attributes of
farmed salmon amongst southern Ontario. Food Science and Technology 47 (2) 217–224.
Naylor R., Hindar K., Fleming I. & Goldburg R. (2005) Fugitive Salmon: Assessing the Risks of Escaped Fish
from Net-Pen Aquaculture. BioScience, 55(5), pp. 11.
Nilsson P. & Ziegler F (2007) Spatial distribution of fishing effort in relation to seafloor habitats in the
Kattegat, a GIS analysis. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 17(4):421–40.
NSC (Norwegian Seafood Council) (2012) Norway – world leader in salmon 2012. Tromsoe, Norway.
Retrieved from:
http://norwegianseafoodcouncil.drupalgardens.com/sites/norwegianseafoodcouncil.drupalgardens.com/fil
es/06_nsc_facts_norwayworldleaderinsalmon.pdf
Parfitt, J., Barthel, M., & Macnaughton, S. (2010) Food waste within food supply chains: quantification and
potential for change to 2050, in Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 2010 365, 3065-3081.
Parker, R. (2012) Review of life cycle assessment research on products derived from fisheries and
aquaculture, A report for Seafish as part of the collective action to address greenhouse gas emissions in
seafood. Final Report. Sea Fish Industry Authority, Edinburgh, UK 22p
PAS2050/2011 BSI Specification for the assessment of life cycle greenhouse gas emissions for goods and
services Retrieved from:
http://www.bsigroup.com/upload/Standards%20&%20Publications/Energy/PAS2050.pdf
PAS 2050-2:2012 - Assessment of life cycle greenhouse gas emissions - Supplementary requirements for the
application of PAS 2050:2011 to seafood and other aquatic food products. Retrieved from:
http://shop.bsigroup.com/upload/Shop/Download/PAS/PAS2050-2.pdf
Pelletier, N., & Tyedmers, P. (2007). Feeding farmed salmon: Is organic better? Aquaculture, 272, 399-416.
Pelletier, N., Ayer, N., Tyedmers, P., Krusa, S., Flysjo, A., Robillard, G., Ziegler, F., Scholz, A., Sonesson, U.
(2007). Impact categories for life cycle assessment research of seafood production systems: review and
prospectus. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,12 (6) 414 – 421.
doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.09.275
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 65 of 69
Pelletier, N. & Tyedmers, P. (2008). Life cycle considerations for improving sustainability assessments in
seafood awareness campaigns. Environmental Management. 42:918-931.
Pelletier, N., Tyedmers, P., Sonesson, U., Scholz, A., Ziegler, F., Flysjo A., Kruse, H., Cancino, B. & Silverman,
H. (2009). Not all salmon are created equal: Life cycle assessment (LCA) of global salmon farming systems.
Environmental Science and Technology, 43, 8730-8736.
Pelletier, N., Audsley, E., Brodt, S., Garnett, T., Henriksson, P., Kendall, A., Kramer, K., Murphy, D., Nemecek,
T., Troell, M. (2011). Energy intensity of agriculture and food systems. Annual review of environment and
resources, 36, 223-46
Samuel-Fitwi, B., Wuertz, S., Schroeder, J., & Schulz, C. (2012). Sustainability assessment tools to support
aquaculture development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 32: 183-192.
Schmidt, J., Reinhard, J., & Weidema, B.(2012). A model of indirect land use change. 8th International
Conference on LCA in the Agri-Food Sector, Renes, France.
Skilbrei OT, Wennevik V (2006) Survival and growth of sea- ranched Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., treated
against sea lice prior to release. ICES Journal of Marine Science 63,1317–1325
Sund, V. (2009). Environmental assessment of Northeast arctic cod (Gadus morhua) caught by long-lines
and Alaska pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) caught by pelagic trawls. Carbon footprinting and analysis of
biological sustainability of two frozen seafood products using Life Cycle Assessment methodology. B.Sc.
thesis Göteborg University, Dept. of Marine Ecology/SIK.
Svanes, E., Vold, M., Hanssen, O.J. (2011) Effect of different allocation methods on LCA results of products
from wild-caught fish and on the use of such results. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2011)
16:512–521. DOI: 10.1007/s11367-011-0288-4
Tacon, A.G.J. (2005). STATE OF INFORMATION ON SALMON AQUACULTURE FEED AND THE ENVIRONMENT.
Salmon Aquaculture Dialogue. Retrieved from:
www.worldwildlife.org/what/globalmarkets/aquaculture/WWFBinaryitem8840.pdf
Thrane, M. (2004) Energy Consumption in the Danish Fishery. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 8(2), 223-239.
Tristram, S. (2009). Waste: Uncovering the Global Food Scandal: The True Cost of What the Global Food
Industry Throws Away. W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. NY.
Tyedmers, P., Pelletier, N., Garrett, A., & Anton, S. (2007). Greenhouse gas emissions for selected seafood
species supplied to UK processors. Report for Sea Fish Industry Authority.
Tyedmers P., & Pelletier N. (2007) Biophysical accounting in aquaculture: insights from current practice and
the need for methodological development. In Comparative assessment of the environmental costs of
aquaculture and other food production sectors: methods for meaningful comparisons. FAO/WFT Expert
Workshop, Vancouver, Canada 2006. FAO Fisheries proc. No. 10
Váradi, L., Lane, A., Harace, Y., Gyalog, G., Békefi, E., Lengyel, P. (2010). Regional Review on Status and
Trends in Aquacultural Development in Europe – 2010. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No. 1061/1.
Retrieved from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/i2211b/i2211b.pdf
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 66 of 69
Vázquez-Rowe, I., Hospido, A., Moreira, T., Feijoo, G. (2012). Best practices in the cycle assessment
implementation in fisheries. Improving and broadening environmental assessment for seafood production
systems. Trends in Food Science & Technology 28(2) 116-131. doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2012.07.003
Wilson, A., Magill, S. & Black, K.D. (2009). Review of environmental impact assessment and monitoring in
salmon aquaculture. In FAO. Environmental impact assessment and monitoring in aquaculture. FAO
Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 527. Rome, FAO. pp. 455–535. Retrieved from:
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/012/i0970e/i0970e01f.pdf
Winther U., Ziegler, F., Hognes E.S., Emanuelsson, A., Sund, V. & Ellingsen, H. (2009) Carbon Footprint and
Energy Use in Norwegian Seafood Products. SINTEF Fisheries and Aquaculture. 89p.
Ytrestøyl.,T., Aas, T. S, Berge, G. M., Hatlen, B., Sørensen, M., Ruyter, B., Thomassen, M., Hognes, E.S.,
Ziegler, F., Sund, V., & Åsgård, T., (2011). Resource utilisation and eco-efficiency of Norwegian salmon
farming in 2010. Report 53/2011. Retrieved from: http://www.nofima.no/filearchive/rapport-53-
2011_4.pdf
Ziegler F., Winther, U., Hognes, E.S., Emanuelsson, A. Sund, V, & Ellingsen, H. (2012). The Carbon Footprint
of Norwegian Seafood Products on the Global Seafood Market. Journal of Industrial Ecology 17( 1) 103–
116. doi:10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00485.x
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 67 of 69
Annex 1
Standards and certification relevant for the aquaculture supply chain
In the context of the SENSE project the overview on international initiatives and stakeholder consultation
on aquaculture certification programmes is important. For the development of the SENSE tool it is essential
to evaluate how the tool can be applied in the food supply chain to facilitate the assessment of
environmental indicators in line with current practices and future trends in the supply chain.
The FAO Code of Conduct for responsible aquaculture (1995) is the background for the development of
environmental impact assessment procedures, monitoring programmes and certification schemes for
aquaculture. The application of certification in aquaculture is now viewed as a potential market-based tool
for minimising potential negative impacts and increasing societal and consumer benefits and confidence in
the process of aquaculture production and marketing FAO (2010).
FAO Technical Guidelines on Aquaculture Certification
FAO Technical Guidelines3 provide guidance for the development, organization and implementation of
credible aquaculture certification schemes. They consider a range of issues which should be considered
relevant for the certification in aquaculture, including: a) animal health and welfare, b) food safety, c)
environmental integrity and d) socio-economic aspects associated with aquaculture.
Various standards and certification programmes for aquaculture species are available worldwide covering
different aspects like quality, organic production, animal welfare, human health and environmental issues.
However, concerns about their relevance and their credibility have been addressed in particular by the
Salmon Aquaculture Dialogue and WWF4 as well as various research initiatives. A benchmarking study on
certification programmes for aquaculture products destined to European markets was performed by this
initiative in 20075. Four main areas of concern were identified in the study: Environmental issues, social
issues, animal welfare and health and standard development and verification procedures. None of the
standards analysed was in full compliance with the criteria stated and defined by WWF, showing that there
was a need for improvement and further adaptation of regulatory frameworks of aquaculture certification
programmes.
In recent years standards and certification schemes have been further developed and implemented to
address the shortcomings mentioned in the benchmarking study in 2007.
3 FAO Technical Guidelines on Aquaculture Certification 2011.
ftp://ftp.fao.org/Fi/DOCUMENT/aquaculture/TGAC/guidelines/Aquaculture%20Certification%20GuidelinesAfterCOFI4-03-11_E.pdf 4 Aquaculture salmon: WWF website http://www.worldwildlife.org/what/globalmarkets/aquaculture/dialogues-
salmon.html 5 Benchmarking Study on International Aquaculture Certification Programmes. World Wildlife Fund (WWF)
Switzerland and Norway Zurich and Oslo 2007
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 68 of 69
List of standards for aquaculture (examples)
Aquaculture
Global Aquaculture Alliance - Best Aquaculture Practices (BAP) standard6
AquaGAP Standard for Good Aquaculture Practices Version 3, 13.10.20107.
Aquaculture Stewardship Council - ASC Salmon Standard8
GLOBALG.A.P. Aquaculture Standard
Friend of the Sea Organic Standards and certification in Aquaculture
Soil Association9
International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements10
Naturland 11
Debio Organic Aquaculture Standards 12,
KRAV 13 Standards for food supply chains Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) recognizes the voluntary industry driven standards:
SQF, BRC,IFS, ISO 9001, ISO 22000,
Global Aquaculture Performance Index (GAPI)
The Global Aquaculture Performance Index (GAPI) was developed by SERG (Seafood Ecology Research
Group) at the University of Virgina as a tool to distill the best available data on the impacts of fish farming
into a simple score of environmental performance by weighing ten impact categories (Volpe et al., 2010) 14.
The environmental benefits of 20 marine finfish aquaculture standards were compared by applying the
GAPI as a tool for the quantitative assessment of the ecological impacts and to highlight the weakness and
strengths of the different standards. The ultimate goal of such benchmarking is to demonstrate how
standards can contribute to a more sustainable aquaculture industry (Volpe et al, 2011)15.
The main outcome on the performance of the standards showed that some organic standards scored high
because of their strong restriction on waste management and use and discharge of chemicals. Others that
did not perform well either did not set standards in key impact areas or did not set measurable limits for
6 http://www.gaalliance.org/
7 AquaGAP Standard For Good Aquaculture Practices Version 3, 13.10.2010
http://www.aquagap.net/Docs/AquaGAP%20Standard%20V3.pdf
8 ASC standards (2012). Final Salmon Aquaculture Dialogue Standards for the Aquaculture Stewardship Council, June 13, 2012:
http://www.worldwildlife.org/what/globalmarkets/aquaculture/WWFBinaryitem28132.pdf ASC Audit Manual for Salmon (2012). Retrieved from: http://www.asc-aqua.org/upload/ASC Audit Manual Salmon_draft.pdf 9 http://www.soilassociation.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=pM14JxQtcs4%3d&tabid=353
10 http://www.ifoam.org/about_ifoam/around_world/eu_group-new/positions/publications/aquaculture/index.php
11 http://www.naturland.de/fileadmin/MDB/documents/Richtlinien_englisch/Naturland-Standards_Aquaculture.pdf
12 Debio – Organic Aquaculture Standards – June 2009,http://www.debio.no/_upl/standards_organic_aquaculture.pdf
13 http://www.krav.se/KravsRegler/7/
14 Volpe, J.P., M. Beck, V. Ethier, J. Gee, A. Wilson. 2010. Global Aquaculture Performance Index. University of Victoria,
Victoria,British Columbia, Canada, 116p. 15
Volpe, J.P., J. Gee, M. Beck, V. Ethier, 2011. How Green Is Your Eco-label? Comparing the Environmental Benefits of Marine Aquaculture Standards. University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. 104p
WP1, D1.1 SENSE 288974
Page 69 of 69
these impacts The GAPI website (www.gapi.ca) provides a log of all data and respective sources that are
publically available and traceable.
Table 18 Global Aquaculture Performance Index (GAPI) (Volpe et al., 2010)
Global Aquaculture Performance Index (GAPI)
Impact Categories / Indicators
Indicator Description Impact
category weighing
Inputs
CAP: Capture-Based Aquaculture
The extent to which a system relies on the capture of wild fish for stocking farms, taking into account the sustainability of these wild fish inputs
5%
ECOE: Ecological Energy
Amount of energy, or net primary productivity (NPP), that farmed fish divert from the ecosystem through consumption of feed ingredients
15%
INDE: Industrial Energy
Energy consumed in production and in the acquisition and processing of feed ingredients
8%
FEED: Sustainability of Feed
Amount, efficiency, and sustainability of wild fish ingredients of feed
15%
Discharges
ANTI: Antibiotics Amount of antibiotics used, weighted by a measure of human and animal health risk
15%
COP: Copper-Based Antifoulants
Estimated proportion of production using copper-based antifoulants
5%
BOD: Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Relative oxygen-depletion effect of waste contaminants (uneaten feed and faeces)
5%
PARA: Parasiticides Amount of parasiticides used, weighted by measures of environmental toxicity and persistence
8%
Biological
ESC: Escapes Biological Escapes (ESC) Number of escaped fish, weighted by an estimate of the per capita risk associated
8%
PATH: Pathogens Number of on-farm mortalities, weighted by an estimate of wild species in the ecosystem that are susceptible to farm-derived pathogens
15%
Eco-Benchmark
Of interest is a Finnish study where LCA was applied to assess five important impact categories: climate
change, acidification, tropospheric ozone formation, terrestrial eutrophication, and aquatic eutrophication,
which were then weighted in relation to each other to develop the so-called “Eco-Benchmark”. The project
was a consumer-oriented LCA-study, and resulted in a tool, which enables consumers, manufacturers, and
experts in administrations and research organisations to assess the role of various products and
consumption patterns in relation to total environmental impacts16.
More extensive methods for weighing of environmental impacts on the same scale like the ecological
footprint assessment have been used based on LCA (Monfred et al., 2004)17.
16 Nissinen, A. & al. 2006. ”Eco-Benchmark for consumer-oriented LCA-based environmental information on products, services and consumption patterns.” In: Jørgensen, A., Molin, C. & Hauschild, M. (eds.). First symposium of the Nordic Life Cycle Association, October 9-10, 2006, Lund, Sweden. 14 p.
17 Monfred, C. Wackernagel, M. And Deumling D. (2004) Establishing national natural capital accounts based on detailed Ecological Footprint and biological capacity
assessments Land Use Policy 21, 3, 231–246.